Alan Kleinman
Well-Known Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 796
- 127
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
You wouldn't want anything to interfere with your belief in ToEism.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You wouldn't want anything to interfere with your belief in ToEism.When have I ever expressed an interest in talking about the physics and mathematics of evolution? Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.
You don't have to wait for that discovery. What you have to wait for is your education in the mathematics of introductory probability theory. Oh, that's right, you don't do math. And the reason I started posting on this forum is that another ToEist member of this forum used one of my papers on the Kishony experiment as an argument for the ToE. I came here to correct him but he has disappeared. And by the way, there are no biologist experts on the physics and mathematics of evolution. If there were, they would have correctly explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Instead, you have a bunch of biologists muddling around, trying to figure out how the empirical data fit their mathematically irrational ToEI suggest you go and talk to the experts and show them this 'huge mathematical problem'.
I'm happy to wait for your discovery of the 'huge mathematical problem' at the heart of evolutionary genetics to be splashed across the front pages, but I'm not holding my breath.
The fact that you're pushing your idea in a general science area of a Christian forum, where you'll be lucky to find anyone to challenge your mathematics, suggests that either you aren't as confident in your claim as your arrogance indicates, or you don't have the courage of your convictions, or you've already tried to convince the experts and had no joy.
I hope you find happiness, but I doubt you'll find it here.
Just out of interest are you familiar with Stuart Kauffman's 'The Origins of Self Order (1992)' and his follow up life's work?
He proposes:
I'm not familiar with his work but this is an interesting quote. The one word I would not agree with from this quote is the word "spontaneous". The use of that word implies that this order comes around naturally. If people want to spend their lives looking for some new physical law to explain the ToE, have at it. But these searchers have a responsibility of using existing physical laws to correctly explain the empirical and experimental evidence of natural selection because of the effect this phenomenon has on medicine and agriculture. Biologists have done somewhere between an incorrect and a terrible job at this task.That complex systems of many kinds exhibit high spontaneous order. This implies that such order is available to evolution and selective forces for further molding. But it also implies, quite profoundly, that the spontaneous order in such systems may enable, guide and limit selection. Therefore, the spontaneous order in complex systems implies that selection may not be the sole source of order in organisms, and that we must invent a new theory of evolution which encompasses the marriage of selection and self-organization.
Really, you know that? How do you know that birds descended from dinosaurs? And where are your computational biologists that explain the mathematics of evolutionary adaptation? Has Dr. Swamidass explained the Kishony evolutionary experiment? Post a link to that paper.
Looks like they already tried posting there: Kleinman: Four Questions About Evolution
I think Kauffman is conflating abiogenesis with evolution. And of course, there is/are no physical laws that explain abiogenesis and therefore no framework in which to build a mathematical model. On the other hand, there are physical laws that explain evolutionary competition and adaptation. Biologists need to learn how to apply those physical laws correctly and then they will get their mathematical models correct.Good interview with Kauffman here ..
Goto the 7:00 minute mark where he's asked: 'How do new functions happen?' the discussion centers around the unreasonable expectation of mathematical models providing any insight into this question:
Thanks. I'll go though the thread when I have more time. Seeing how Kleinman interacts with experts should be informative.
I counter the misinterpretation of the fossil record with a correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of evolutionary competition and DNA evolution. And Dr. Swamidass couldn't explain the Kishony experiment if he wanted to. He can't even correctly answer whether doubling population size doubles the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. To answer that question correctly requires the understanding of the difference between complementary and additive events.What is your alternative to tens of millions of years of dinosaur to bird transitions found in the fossil record. Perhaps you can point us to the actual science that AIG and DI that are doing.
Why would Dr. Swanidass need to explain the Kishony evolutionary experiment? Why not ask him directly?
It appears all you are saying is that the Kishony experiments failed because they did not use your mathematical model.
I counter the misinterpretation of the fossil record with a correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of evolutionary competition and DNA evolution.
And Dr. Swamidass couldn't explain the Kishony experiment if he wanted to. He can't even correctly answer whether doubling population size doubles the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring.
To answer that question correctly requires the understanding of the difference between complementary and additive events.
Well, no doubt you'll be able to put them right... there are no biologist experts on the physics and mathematics of evolution. If there were, they would have correctly explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Instead, you have a bunch of biologists muddling around, trying to figure out how the empirical data fit their mathematically irrational ToE
It's pretty much as you see here, but briefer...Thanks. I'll go though the thread when I have more time. Seeing how Kleinman interacts with experts should be informative.
It's pretty much as you see here, but briefer...
And no one on Peaceful Science can correctly explain the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance, especially Dr. Swamdass. If you want to try to do a probability problem (which DNA evolution is), you should at least master introductory probability theory. And thinking that doubling the population size doubles the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring does not demonstrate mastery of that math. Go back to the link to his site given in an earlier post and read his answer. He says that doubling population size doubles the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring. If you think he does understand this subject, post a link to his paper where he explains the Kishony experiment.No one here or on Peaceful Science appears to agree with your "correct explanation," but I haven't read everything. Perhaps you have some links to unbiased sources.
So you say. Are you able to back that statement up?
This appears to be your answer regardless of the question.
I'll try but ToEists tend not to be good at applied mathematics and they also are not good listeners.Well, no doubt you'll be able to put them right
Try to teach a mathematical problem to people who refuse to learn the mathematics.It's pretty much as you see here, but briefer...
It's pretty much as you see here, but briefer...
You really need to study up on where people like Kauffman have come from and are going to. Your model would be regarded as a toy model compared with his. Not only has he spent extraordinary time and efforts working on computer simulations on both Evolution and Abiogenesis, he has also spent large amounts of time on testing them out in the lab (and entire lifetime, in fact).I think Kauffman is conflating abiogenesis with evolution. And of course, there is/are no physical laws that explain abiogenesis and therefore no framework in which to build a mathematical model. On the other hand, there are physical laws that explain evolutionary competition and adaptation. Biologists need to learn how to apply those physical laws correctly and then they will get their mathematical models correct.
And no one on Peaceful Science can correctly explain the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug resistance, especially Dr. Swamdass.
Swamidass:What’s so hard for you to understand when I suggest you simulate the Kishony experiment with two drugs? That’s an example that potentially could be tested experimentally and I’ve already predicted the number of replications for each evolutionary step at about one trillion. If you can’t do it with your simulation, that’s your problem.
As we discussed, you did not demonstrate we are making a different prediction. What is so hard for you to understand?
I doubt the simplicity of the reduced model underlying the math. Practical complexity calculations aren't based on ideal normal distibutions.Try to teach a mathematical problem to people who refuse to learn the mathematics.
Go tell them to figure out the Kishony and Lenski experiment. If they have trouble with that, they can read these papers:For the most part yes, one difference was substantial. Swamidass offered him an opportunity to produce a specification for a simulation to test who is correct, Kleinman withdrew.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?