Annoying creationists

[joobz]

Here's Dr. Kleinman, M.D. Ph.D. and master of mathematics more advanced than anything Dr. Schneider has done, lecturing me on probability theory:

Perhaps it would be helpful to review the theorems of probabilities in question. The following is the multiplicative rule.

• If E are independent events in a sample space S and the probabilities of events E are not equal to zero, then the total probability of events E occurring is the product of their individual probabilities.
• PTotal= (E)^n where E is the event and n is the number of independent events.

The addition rule for mutually exclusive events in a sample space S states that the probability of that event occurring is the sum of individual probabilities of each of the exclusive events.

If we apply these rules to the mutation and population case, the mutation is the event “E” and the population is the sample space. The probability of the event “E” must be 0>=P(E)>=1. You are confusing the probability of a particular event occurring which must have a value between 0 and 1 with probability that a particular event may occur by a series of mutually exclusive events which can have probabilities greater than 1.

An example of the correct use of the additive rule is: the probability of rolling any specific number on a die is 1/6. Therefore the probability of rolling a number that's 4 or less -- that is, rolling a 1, rolling a 2, rolling a 3, or rolling a 4 -- is 1/6+1/6+1/6+1/6 = 2/3. It works correctly in this case because on a single die, rolling a 1 is obviously mutually exclusive with rolling a 2, rolling a 3, etc.

The probability of throwing a 1 in either of two rolls of a die is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3. The probability of throwing two 1’s in two rolls of a die is (1/6)*(1/6) = 1/36. Random mutations are mutually exclusive events. The probability of having a particular mutation at a particular locus in two creatures is 1/G + 1/G = 2/G. The probability of having the same mutation in two creatures is (1/G)* (1/G) = (1/G^2)

(emphasis addedd)

If I believed that Kleinman could possibly be telling the truth about being licensed to practice engineering or medicine, I'd be frightened to enter a doctor's office or cross a bridge.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes, the world that kleinman lives in uses some very strange rules.
BTW, kleinman, in case you were wondering. In our world, the odds of rolling a 1 in a number of throws is equal to 1 minus the odds of not rolling a one in either throw. (1-(5/6)^n) n=number of throws.

 

[sphenisc]

Yes, the world that kleinman lives in uses some very strange rules.
BTW, kleinman, in case you were wondering. In our world, the odds of rolling a 1 in a number of throws is equal to 1 minus the odds of not rolling a one in either throw. (1-(5/6)^n) n=number of throws.

Except my world, where the odds of rolling a 1 are not the same as the odds of rolling at least one 1.

 

[joobz]

Except my world, where the odds of rolling a 1 are not the same as the odds of rolling at least one 1.

Sorry bout that, i was going with the assumed "at least 1"

 

[cyborg]

The probability of throwing a 1 in either of two rolls of a die is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3.

Haha, what a retard.

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

If you want to find my PhD thesis, check with University Microfilms, however you will find the mathematics a bit more difficult than what Dr Schneider has done. If you are persistent enough to check, you will find that I am licensed in both engineering and medicine.

Here's Dr. Kleinman, M.D. Ph.D. and master of mathematics more advanced than anything Dr. Schneider has done, lecturing me on probability theory:

Myriad, you did a good job correcting my error when I thought that population obeyed the additive rule of probability. Population affect is less than additive which only undermines your theory even more so. In return for your correcting my error in probability theory, I will correct your error in the theory of evolution. Maybe you can correct my assertions about what ev shows, but don’t lose too much sleep over it. Have you done any jiggling of the threshold to make ev converge more quickly? Perhaps I should repost your discussion where you say that the reason the ev doesn’t converge quickly is that there is not enough randomness in the model. That’s the kind of hypothesis that an evolutionarian would swallow hook, line and sinker.

If I believed that Kleinman could possibly be telling the truth about being licensed to practice engineering or medicine, I'd be frightened to enter a doctor's office or cross a bridge.

This is one of those cases where the truth is stranger than fiction. It’s kind of like the superficially plausible idea of the theory of evolution turns out to be false when you run the numbers. You better check twice before you enter a doctor’s office or cross a bridge. I told you evolutionarians that I lied only once in these discussions and that is when I told Delphi his statements were not contradictory.

Yes, the world that kleinman lives in uses some very strange rules.

They are not as strange as you might think. 2+2=4, F=ma, energy is conserved, and the soft science theory of evolution is a mathematically deficient theory that fails to add up, ev shows this.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unfortunately, the fact is that scientific debate tends to be far from the dispassionate model you seem to be claiming here. You may believe that faith is a mindless act of self-deception and immune to reason but that describes science almost as well as it does religion.

Oh please. If this were true, then the technology derived from science would not work any better than practices based on faith. I agree there is a spectrum and science falls somewhere on it, but not in the same place as religion.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

No wonder the poor stupid twat couldn't understand my maths.

Sheesh.

 

[Hawk one]

And to think that earlier in this very thread, I did in fact put up the correct odds of rolling at least one 1 on two dice.

Just saying this because of the increased irony.

 

[joobz]

For those just tuning in, Kleinman has so far made the following claims:

1.)Thermodynamics is a study of kinetics, "dynamics is in the name!"
2.)Natural Selection is a restatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
3.)Probability can exceed 1.
4.)A failure of a model proves that the natural, observed event is impossible.

did I miss anything?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

did I miss anything?

5) Anyone thinks that H. Sapiens evolved from a random gigabase genome with only point mutations.

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

did I miss anything?

5) Anyone thinks that H. Sapiens evolved from a random gigabase genome with only point mutations.

6) ev shows that nothing evolved by random point mutations and natural selection.

 

[John Hewitt]

Oh please. If this were true, (that faith is hardly more immune to self-deception than science) then the technology derived from science would not work any better than practices based on faith. I agree there is a spectrum and science falls somewhere on it, but not in the same place as religion.

~~ Paul

I hope you are not claiming credit for too many of the acievements of past generations, and more religious eras. Science really is much more like faith than you seem to realise - read Koestler on Galileo for example.

Also, I think you should read some of the comments made on this thread, try to read them as if you haven't already made up your mind whose side you're on.

 

[Myriad]

Haha, what a retard.

Now, that's a little harsh. The mistake itself is one that many (probably most) people would make. What makes it notable is that it and the other equally absurd errors in the passge occur in the midst of a pagelong harangue on "here's the correct way to calculate probabilities."

And to think that earlier in this very thread, I did in fact put up the correct odds of rolling at least one 1 on two dice.

Again to be fair, that thread on eid is months old. He posted the quoted passage long before this thread began. Also, he seemed willing to learn back then. He accepted the correct calculations after I had explained them a few times (though of course, also immediately claimed that the real rules were more evidence against evolution, like it was a new discovery in mathematics that science was not yet aware of or something).

The question is, was that also before he wrote his dissertation, the one whose title, year, and school he's oddly reluctant to divulge, using mathematics more difficult than Dr. Schneider's? Most likely not. There doesn't seem to have been enough time, at least not if realistic parameters are used.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I hope you are not claiming credit for too many of the acievements of past generations, and more religious eras. Science really is much more like faith than you seem to realise - read Koestler on Galileo for example.

I'm claiming credit for anything that was investigated scientifically, whether by rabid atheists or religious zealots. And the point is precisely that it doesn't matter what sort of arrogant ass Galileo might have been. Science is about process and long-term understanding, about many people working on the same problems, not about individual personalities. This goes a long way to washing out faith, although it doesn't preclude lots of mistakes along the way.

Also, I think you should read some of the comments made on this thread, try to read them as if you haven't already made up your mind whose side you're on.

Surely you're not suggesting I do that experiment in this thread?

~~ Paul

 

[kleinman]

Annoying Creationists

Again to be fair, that thread on eid is months old. He posted the quoted passage long before this thread began. Also, he seemed willing to learn back then. He accepted the correct calculations after I had explained them a few times (though of course, also immediately claimed that the real rules were more evidence against evolution, like it was a new discovery in mathematics that science was not yet aware of or something).

I’m always willing to learn. Your correction of my error assuming that increasing population increases the probability of an appropriate mutation occurring at the appropriate locus was governed by the additive rule of probabilities explains why ev demonstrates decreasing rates of convergence with increasing population. If I had been correct on this point, the rate of decrease should remain constant with increasing population. Now if you would only be willing to learn what happens with ev when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.

The question is, was that also before he wrote his dissertation, the one whose title, year, and school he's oddly reluctant to divulge, using mathematics more difficult than Dr. Schneider's? Most likely not. There doesn't seem to have been enough time, at least not if realistic parameters are used.

A Solution of the Inverse Bioheat Transfer Problem, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI, vol. 42, no. 10, 1981. Have fun reading it.

 

[articulett]

Unfortunately, the fact is that scientific debate tends to be far from the dispassionate model you seem to be claiming here. You may believe that faith is a mindless act of self-deception and immune to reason but that describes science almost as well as it does religion.

That is a common belief of the faithful, but it's untrue. We don't fly on airplanes built on faith--we don't go to doctors whose medicine is based on faith--if you want to know what is true and what works--you go for the evidence. You factor in the common way that humans are known to fool themselves and submit your information to peer review. You learn from your mistakes. The data is refined and honed and evolves with time. Science is all built upon measurable evidence as much as religion would like to claim it isn't so an refuse to "compute" the evidence while highlighting their own obtuse hypothesis as though they were anywhere near as likely to be as true or useful or valuable as anything mere mortals using the scientific method have discovered.

Where did you get your above claim. Perhaps you and Interesting Ian share a common source. Or maybe your intelligent designer let you in on a little secret than isn't supported by evidence.

I didn't say faith was a mindless act of self deception. It might well be a mindful act of self deception...it might also hit upon a truth on occasions. But faith usually involves belief without evidence or despite evidence or by semantically twisting evidence--it deals with such invisible immeasurable things as gods and souls and afterlives for which there is not a good definition of, much less evidence for...that is is, faith claims that there is "divine" or "special knowledge" one can access--wheras, science doesn't even recognize any supernatural source since not an iota of evidence has been proffered for such beliefs contrasted to lots of evidence about how people come to believe as they do. Faith is not particularly amenable to reason because the faithful believe that "believing" itself is something noble or good. Science doesn't really work by playing that game--it's just, well useless, extremely prone to error and confirmation bias and absolutely centers around concepts that can not be distinguished from the imaginary or delusional.

 

[articulett]

Aparently, kleinman is a halfwitted sociopath. I wouldn't have made my previous post if that wasn't true.

I like you, you're a nice person, please go and reason with someone amenable to such treatment.

Thanks, my favorite wordsmith--but I wasn't trying to to reason WITH him--(I understand that that would require him responding to questions and not ignoring the ones that threatened his beliefs) I was trying to figure out the reason FOR his imperviousness. I know better than to reason with a creationist--that doesn't stop the fun to be had in goading them, does it? Nor does it mitigate the charge I get in talking ABOUT them. I have no savior delusions, I assure you. I just happen to be very interested in confabulation syndromes, cognitive dissonance, self deception, and the like--PLUS, I have a wicked fondness for provoking the hubris-encumbered. I know it isn't nice--but damn they are so cute when they get all sanctimonious, don't you think?

I sure am glad I don't believe in hell.

 

[Dr Adequate]

6) ev shows that nothing evolved by random point mutations and natural selection. Kleinman is a halfwitted liar.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Dr Adequate]

ev demonstrates decreasing rates of convergence with increasing population. Kleinman is a halfwitted liar.

Always glad to be of service.

 

[Mashuna]

Always glad to be of service.

I wasn't quite following the original post, but it's much clearer now. Thanks for the clarification.