Author
|
Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
Tanypteryx: Oh, boohoo, the biologists are all so mean! They hurt your poor feelings when they all said you are full of shit. You're a conman and a fraud.
You must be smoking some wacky tobacky or be on the sauce. A ding-dong like you doesn't hurt my feelings. You reveal how dumb you are when you fail to explain how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You should stick with what you are good at, catching bugs and sticking a pin through them in a cigar box.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 738 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-29-2023 1:54 PM | | Tanypteryx has not replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 741 of 1104 (909210)
03-29-2023 2:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 739 by Tangle 03-29-2023 1:58 PM
|
|
Tangle's quote from Panda's Thumb: Bears repeating every now and then: Panda's Thumb Forum Evaluating Alan Kleinman's arguments By Joe Felsenstein
You wouldn't understand it but Joe Felsenstein makes a major mathematical blunder when doing his phylogenetics. He doesn't do his sample randomly.
Statistics for Dummiesquote: How do you select a statistical sample in a way that avoids bias? The key word is random. A random sample is a sample selected by equal opportunity; that is, every possible sample of the same size as yours had an equal chance to be selected from the population. What random really means is that no subset of the population is favored in or excluded from the selection process. Non-random (in other words bad) samples are samples that were selected in such a way that some type of favoritism and/or automatic exclusion of a part of the population was involved, whether intentional or not.
I'll make it simple for you Tangle. Felsenstein tries to determine relatedness by finding 40 or so bases to compare. He ignores all the rest of the genome that differs between the two species he is trying to compare. This is garbage. If you don't think that is what he is doing, look at this explanation from Stanford.
How to build a phylogenetic treequote: The first thing to do is align the two DNA sequences together that you’re going to compare. Make sure you’re comparing the same gene! (Or other sequence.) Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.
His technique ignores the fundamental principles of doing statistical analysis correctly. That is why his work is garbage.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 739 by Tangle, posted 03-29-2023 1:58 PM | | Tangle has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 742 by Tangle, posted 03-29-2023 3:01 PM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 743 of 1104 (909212)
03-29-2023 3:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 742 by Tangle 03-29-2023 3:01 PM
|
|
Kleinman: His technique ignores the fundamental principles of doing statistical analysis correctly. That is why his work is garbage.Tangle: I've been here 12 years Keinman, I've seen dozens of fruit-loops like you claim extraordinary things. It always take the same form - 'I've found something that proves that all of science for the last 200 years is wrong'. The details of why and how vary, but it all resolves to the same thing. The claims would instantly gain a Nobel Prize if correct, but as yet, none have materialised. Instead a few have ended in the loony bin.
Tangle, you are really slow at this. Edward Tatum (you know him, he shared 1/2 the Nobel Prize with George Beadle) in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture explained the crucial principle of descent with modification and adaptation. Do I need to post his quote again for you? It is the multiplication rule of probabilities. The only thing that I have done is the mathematics of what he wrote about. If biologists don't understand the math, they need better training because this math is really simple and well-known by probability theory mathematicians. Biologists have been wrong about evolution, in particular, universal common descent and because of this, they have failed to correctly explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. Perhaps we will have to wait another century for biologists to get this physical phenomenon right.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 742 by Tangle, posted 03-29-2023 3:01 PM | | Tangle has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 744 by Tangle, posted 03-29-2023 3:32 PM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 746 of 1104 (909216)
03-29-2023 3:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 744 by Tangle 03-29-2023 3:32 PM
|
|
Tangle: I'm not interested Kleinman; it's not me you have to convince, it's the guys that work in the disciplines you are trying to say are wrong. Nobody recognises your amazing insights. The reason is that you're both wrong and delusional.
Tangle, you are just one of the pawns that blindly follow whatever you are told. Go join Phat in the land of the uninterested. Drug resistance and cancer treatment failure are just too difficult a topic for you and biologists.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 744 by Tangle, posted 03-29-2023 3:32 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 747 of 1104 (909217)
03-29-2023 4:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 745 by dwise1 03-29-2023 3:52 PM
|
|
Tangle: That corrupts your mind. Real scientists who also hold religious beliefs - which are the majority - are able to separate their beliefs from their science.
dwise1: For example, there is at least one YEC associated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR, the organization which created "creation science") who has actual training in science and had published actual scientific papers. The difference is that his scientific work did not depend on nor include his YEC beliefs, whereas his creationist work plays as fast and loose with science as any other creationist's work does. Come to think of it, all his actual scientific work was before he joined the ICR, after which there's nothing but YEC stuff. To draw from the teachings of Mr. Miyagi: Either do science-yes or science-no, but not science-maybe. Do science-maybe and you get squished like a grape. FWIW, the character of Mr. Miyagi was based on my own sensei, Fumio Demura.
Since it seems that you understand a little bit of probability theory, why don't you teach biologists about the "at least one" rule and the multiplication rule of probabilities? Taq still has difficulty understanding that one uses the multiplication rule when computing the joint probability of two random events. That includes the joint probability of the recombination of two adaptive alleles.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 745 by dwise1, posted 03-29-2023 3:52 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 748 by dwise1, posted 03-29-2023 5:34 PM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 752 of 1104 (909222)
03-29-2023 5:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 748 by dwise1 03-29-2023 5:34 PM
|
|
Kleinman: Since it seems that you understand a little bit of probability theory, why don't you teach biologists about the "at least one" rule and the multiplication rule of probabilities?dwise1: I have. You are the one who refuses to learn. And just what the fuck does your "reply" have to do with anything that I had written there? Are replies yet another thing that you refuse to understand? Stupid troll!
You're a bit confused dwise1. I know how the "at least one" and the multiplication rule work. I've published papers using those two rules that explain how descent with modification works and it works just fine with experimental examples of biological evolution such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments and explains how drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. I thought you might be interested in teaching biologists this math but it is apparent that you see it is hopeless to teach a biologist how biological evolution works.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 748 by dwise1, posted 03-29-2023 5:34 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 753 of 1104 (909223)
03-29-2023 5:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 751 by Taq 03-29-2023 5:54 PM
|
|
Kleinman: Take Punnett's square or anything else you know about genetics and you still can't explain the evolution of drug resistance or why cancer treatments fail.Taq: I already did that in this thread: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20319
When are you going to publish your results and explain how the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments work? Silly boy.
Kleinman: Biologists failed at understanding the fundamental principle of descent with modification and adaptation.
Taq: No, they didn't. You fail at even the basics of sexual reproduction. That is why you keep bringing up the multiplication rule which does not apply to sexual reproduction.
Yea, I know, I've read all zero of the publications by biologists that explain how the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments work. And since dwise1 sees it as hopeless to try and teach you any probability theory, random recombination of adaptive alleles is computed using the multiplication rule. You compute the probability by multiplying the frequency of each allele to get the joint probability. I could refer you to a high school probability course if you are interested in learning some introductory probability theory.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 751 by Taq, posted 03-29-2023 5:54 PM | | Taq has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 754 by Taq, posted 03-29-2023 6:02 PM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 755 of 1104 (909225)
03-29-2023 6:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 751 by Taq 03-29-2023 5:54 PM
|
|
Kleinman: Do you want me to post the definition of atheism again for you?
quote: Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. What is Atheism? - American Atheists
Why don't you just call yourself agnostic?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 751 by Taq, posted 03-29-2023 5:54 PM | | Taq has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 756 by Taq, posted 03-29-2023 6:04 PM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 757 of 1104 (909227)
03-29-2023 6:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 750 by Taq 03-29-2023 5:52 PM
|
|
Re: problems with detecting design
Kleinman: Let's consider another one of your irrational ideas in more detail, that of ERVs. You claim that humans and chimps share 203,000 ERVs because a common ancestorial lineage had these ERVs before the human and chimp lineages branched.Taq: Humans have 203,000 ERVs. Period. How much we share with chimps is a separate question. You can't even accept the fact that there are 203,000 ERVs in our genome as detailed in the 2001 human genome paper.
203,000 retroviral infections to a germ cell line and the lineage does just fine is part of your belief system. You just won't accept the fact that a single retroviral infection may drive the koala population to extinction. And this idea that 8% of the human genome is made up of ERVs ignores the fact of the lethality that a single retroviral infection can have such as HIV. You are spouting nonsense because your understanding of descent with modification has collapsed.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 750 by Taq, posted 03-29-2023 5:52 PM | | Taq has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 772 by Taq, posted 03-30-2023 10:44 AM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 758 of 1104 (909228)
03-29-2023 6:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 754 by Taq 03-29-2023 6:02 PM
|
|
Kleinman: When are you going to publish your results and explain how the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments work?
Taq: No one writes papers explaining how other peoples' experiments work.
Especially because biologists don't know how they work including the people performing the experiment.
Kleinman: Yea, I know, I've read all zero of the publications by biologists that explain how the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments work.Taq: The Lenski and Kishony papers explain how their experiments work. You do realize that there are more than two papers in existence, right?
Now you are imitating ringo. Post the papers that explain those experiments. You won't unless you post my papers because biologists have failed to explain these experiments.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 754 by Taq, posted 03-29-2023 6:02 PM | | Taq has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 773 by Taq, posted 03-30-2023 10:46 AM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 759 of 1104 (909229)
03-29-2023 6:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 756 by Taq 03-29-2023 6:04 PM
|
|
Kleinman: Why don't you just call yourself agnostic?
Taq: I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist.
What do you call a person that doesn't believe that God exists?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 756 by Taq, posted 03-29-2023 6:04 PM | | Taq has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 760 by Tangle, posted 03-29-2023 6:26 PM | | Kleinman has replied | | Message 775 by Taq, posted 03-30-2023 11:04 AM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 761 of 1104 (909231)
03-29-2023 6:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 760 by Tangle 03-29-2023 6:26 PM
|
|
Kleinman: What do you call a person that doesn't believe that God exists?Tangle: Sane
Maybe sane but definitely mathematically incompetent.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 760 by Tangle, posted 03-29-2023 6:26 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 762 by AZPaul3, posted 03-29-2023 7:32 PM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 763 of 1104 (909233)
03-29-2023 7:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 762 by AZPaul3 03-29-2023 7:32 PM
|
|
Kleinman: Maybe sane but definitely mathematically incompetent.AZPaul3: Other than the sane part, that's you. We have your papers as evidence. The preponderance of the evidence to be sure. Mathematically incompetent.
You still haven't presented any mathematical explanation of the evolution of drug resistance or why cancer treatments fail or a mathematical explanation of the Kishony or Lenski biological evolutionary experiments. You can't even find a single paper written by biologists that give a mathematical explanation of either experiment. Sorry, but your bubble has burst.
Kleinman: The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. -Kleinman The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance. - KleinmanAZPaul3: CAUTION: The listed papers above are considered to be bogus, filled with incorrect math and inappropriate conclusions. The reader is advised to disregard their content as well as their author.
Now, here are the papers that explain descent with modification and adaptation that explain the evolution of drug resistance and why cancer treatments fail. They also give the mathematical explanation of the Kishony and Lenski biological evolutionary experiments (if you include the mathematical explanation for biological competition for the Lenski experiment. Here are the links to those papers: For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selectionAnd for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistanceAnd one you left out which explains the mathematics of the Lenski experiment: The Lenski Long Term Evolution Experiment Study those links and learn something about the mathematics of biological evolution.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 762 by AZPaul3, posted 03-29-2023 7:32 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 764 by AZPaul3, posted 03-29-2023 8:04 PM | | Kleinman has replied | | Message 774 by Taq, posted 03-30-2023 10:48 AM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 766 of 1104 (909246)
03-30-2023 8:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 764 by AZPaul3 03-29-2023 8:04 PM
|
|
Kleinman: The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection. -Kleinman The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance. - KleinmanAZPaul3: CAUTION: The listed papers above are considered to be bogus, filled with incorrect math and inappropriate conclusions. The reader is advised to disregard their content as well as their author.
You should really include the links to those papers since I'm claiming these papers explain how drug resistance evolves and gives the mathematics for descent with modification and adaptation since biologists have not done this correctly, so here they are. For a single selection pressure:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selectionAnd for multiple simultaneous selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistanceAnd as a bonus, here is a short presentation video that explains how to combine the mathematics of biological competition with the mathematics of descent with modification and adaptation to a single selection pressure (the Lenski Long Term Evolution Experiment). The Lenski Long Term Evolution ExperimentFind any errors in the math or bogus conclusions if you can.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 764 by AZPaul3, posted 03-29-2023 8:04 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 768 by AZPaul3, posted 03-30-2023 9:47 AM | | Kleinman has replied |
|
Kleinman
Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2142 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2016
|
|
Message 767 of 1104 (909247)
03-30-2023 8:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 765 by AZPaul3 03-29-2023 8:48 PM
|
|
Kleinman: AZPaul3 is driven by his hate. He hates God ...AZPaul3: Which one is that? There are thousands. And that's just in your house. Doesn't matter. You are right. God is a most hateful concept no matter what the cult.
It is good to know that your hatred has no discrimination. And you have the culture of utopia.
Kleinman: ... and he hates people that believe in God ...AZPaul3: Nah. Can't hate people. Religion does enough of that in our world.
How heartwarming, AZPaul3 has a heart full of love.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 765 by AZPaul3, posted 03-29-2023 8:48 PM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
|