Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

That's a flat out lie. I dare you to quote any of us saying that. What is the Lord going to think about your lies?

What I extracted is that Davidjay is totally against the use of the scientific method."No keep, schools for knowledge rather than theories."--Davidjay, post 953The final output of the scientific method is theories. If you say that you don't want theories taught to students, then you are saying that you don't want the scientific method taught."I am sad because the practical result of this brouhaha will not be expanded coverage to include creationism (that would also make me sad), but the reduction or excision of evolution from high school curricula. Evolution is one of the half dozen "great ideas" developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of usthe "roots" phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder. Shall we deprive millions of this knowledge and once again teach biology as a set of dull and unconnected facts, without the thread that weaves diverse material into a supple unity?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I think you have that backwards. You reflexively call anything that contradicts your beliefs a religion.

If you observe a car coming down the street, is that belief based?

You didn't answer my question. If you see a car coming down the street is that a belief based conclusion?

Let's look at humans as our example. How many beneficial mutations are available in the human genome? If you think it is just one, you are flat out wrong. Two examples off the top of my head are mutations that control melanin production and lactose tolerance. For changes in melanin production, there are many possible mutations that can change the phenotype, not just one. Even more, both of these mutations can happen in the same population and then be joined together in one genome through sexual reproduction. Skin color doesn't have to wait for lactose tolerance, or vice versa.You seem to think that one experiment is applicable to all populations and all environments. You are wrong. It isn't.

The closest node to mammals is Amniota: Fish are much more distant. Mammals evolved from reptile-like ancestors, also known as Synampsids:Synapsida

The step just before mammals was synapsids which were reptile-like. Usually when someone says A evolved into B they are asking about the immediate steps. Do mammals have fish ancestors? Yes. Mammals also have reptile-like ancestors, amphibian-like ancestors, jawless vertebrate ancestors, and single celled eukaryotic ancestors. Why are you picking fish out of that list?

Your hobby horse is getting worn out. I will ask again. Out of all the non-mammalian ancestors of mammals, why did you select fish? Explain. Why not select the reptile-like mammalian transitionals?

If there are 10,000 possible beneficial mutations, what is the probability then? What about 2 million possible beneficial mutations? You still don't understand sexual reproduction.

If you think there is only one possible mutation in a whole genome for every single adaptation, and that there is only one possible and specific adaptation for every environmental challenge, then you need to get out into the real world.

"Mr. Kleinman, what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."--from the movie "Billy Madison"

Can you explain to us how there was only a single possible mutation at a single base in the Tiktaalik lineage that would have led to those adaptations?Use your brain. I promise, it won't hurt.

I will take that as a tacit admission that the Kishony experiment does not apply.

Until you can show that there was only a single mutation at a single base that led to tetrapods then you can't apply the Kishony experiment. You are the one denying the existence of sexual reproduction.