Brad has already stated (in previous posts) that 1.5s aren't allowed. He is talking modular arithmetic; it's either in the set or it isn't.
I'm afraid Brad has learned a few cool buzzwords in mathematical biology (that were fashionable in the 70s) but doesn't really understand how mathematical biology works. I have a fair amount of experience in mathematical biology. I'm not a very good mathematician, but I know bullshit when I see it. I will repeat a challenge I made in a different post, and request that Brad give a worked example.
Giving a coherent worked example is considered that basic minimum of proof in mathematical biology. Giving a load of pseudo-mathematical waffle definitely isn't helping debate. I am willing to challenge Brad on the basis of mathematics, but I only request that he is able to provide a worked numerical example of his thesis.
mick