Re: The Theory of Evolution is Mathematically Irrational Round 2

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:32:05 -0700 (PDT), chris thompson
<chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 5:22 pm, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 15, 6:08 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:59:52 -0700 (PDT), Bill

<brogers31...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 6:51 am, Alan Kleinman MD PhD <klein...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Sorry for top posting, I'd just suggest that all the responses to
Dr.Dr.Dr. AK go into this thread. At least for those of us stuck with
Google Groups, once you hit 1000 posts the thread fragments. It's
entertaining and it would be nice to have it all in one place.

I believe you, in a different thread, have been arguing against John
Wilkins about modifying traditional biological word usage just to
placate the creationists or at least to deny them the ability to twist
the meaning of the words to their purposes.  Now you would have all
the rest of us modify traditional posting methods just to placate
those people who do not know how to use a real news reader and must
rely on Google Groups!

I think you are a bit confused here. I?ve only posted on this thread.

This discussion is centered on the mathematics of mutation and
selection, not on word usage. Evolutionists have abandoned mathematics
and embraced semantics as a means of substantiating the mathematically
irrational theory of evolution.

Interesting.

In other words, bullshit.

Please critique the math in this paper:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000720

It's on PLOS, so it is open access.


I appreciate the sentiment behind this request but I am somewhat
puzzled. That paper has no mathematical content. It does use
statistics. There is an abundance of papers with a lot of real
mathematics and probability theory on evolutionary theory. So why was
this particular one selected?


.

Relevant Pages