Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

This is exactly how I feel when I read what YOU write. And whats also sad(and makes me a bit angry at satan) is that you think that the evidence supports your argument yet you are blind and remain blind to what is actually going on.(You too, ringo)Not that I support Kleinman, mind you.

Just follow the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution? topic in the "Biological Evolution" forum.

I'm not asking for your support. I'm asking you to understand the physical and mathematical facts of life.

You haven't even made it clear whether you accept evolution or not. In this thread, try to be coherent. Tell us what the schools are doing wrong and what they need to do to put it right.

Of course, I accept evolution. I have to deal with the consequence of it on a regular basis in my medical practice (that is drug-resistant infection). What I don't accept is this mathematically irrational notion that reptiles can evolve into birds and fish can evolve into mammals. A good starting point to put this right is to require biology students to master introductory probability theory in their dumbbell math courses so that they might have some understanding of stochastic processes such as DNA evolution. What that means is that the faculty of biology departments have to understand the subject and clearly, in general, they don't understand that subject.

So you don't accept evolution as it is understood by scientists. And you think mathematics trumps reality. There are people on this forum who understand introductory probability theory but they don't seem to be convinced by your version of what evolution really, really, really is. So that doesn't seem to be a solution.

Speaking of understanding the subject Reptiles didn't evolve into birds and fish didn't evolve into mammals. Species evolve *from* other species. Reptiles did not change into birds. Nor is that silly bumper sticker simplification useful even if you manage to get the terminology right.Anyhow, bit by bit, you're coming out of your closet. An evolution denier who believes in evolution.

Just because people claim that reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals don't make them scientists. And mathematics is the language of science. Why don't these "scientists" correctly describe the mathematical behavior of the Kishony and Lenski evolution experiments? Why don't these "scientists" give the mathematical explanation for why combination therapy works for treating hiv? These so-called "scientists" can only make up stories but they can't explain the mathematical and empirical evidence of DNA evolution, a stochastic process (which is mathematical). Who???? Taq???? The only number that Taq has produced in our discussion is 3e9 which substantiates the math that I've presented. Where are all these people on this forum who understand introductory probability theory? I've had to do the math for multiple possible beneficial mutations, the math for random recombination, I've had published and had peer-reviewed the mathematics for random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures (which explains why combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works and why the Kishony experiment for two drugs doesn't work), I've published the mathematics which explains the Lenski experiment, and I'm doing the finishing touches on a paper which correctly does the Markov Chain mathematics for DNA evolution. Where are all your experts in probability theory that can explain how reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? They can't even explain the simplest evolutionary experiments.

You have it backwards. What makes them scientists is doing science. And the science they do indicates that species do evolve into other species.I suppose next you're going to roll out the old creationist claim that it isn't "real science". Exactly. It's what we use to describe the science. It doesn't define reality. If they disagreed with Taq, they'd say so.

blah, blah, blah. Tangle is now going to give us the mathematical explanation of how evolution works, NOT. And Tangle is bit by bit coming out (actually full throttle) with his pseudo-scientific understanding of evolution. And that pseudo-scientific understanding of evolution harms people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

Thousands of mathematicians, thousands of geneticists, thousands of evolutionary biologists the world over and none of them have figured out that their ideas are all wrong.Must be really disheartening to go through all that schooling, all those years in the lab and at the computer crunching numbers, working all those years building skills in your discipline and reputation with your colleagues just to find out some upstart internet nobody says you've been so wrong all this time.The real hurt for you, I'm sure, is that you have to come here to EvC, to an amateur general discussion site, to push your novel views because you can't hold your own against the professionals on the dedicated discipline sites.

Oh no, I have a new claim. If they are real scientists, why haven't they given the correct mathematical explanation for the Kishony and Lenski evolution experiments? That's right! But if you do the mathematical modeling correctly, you can predict the behavior of a physical system. So, where are your correct mathematical models for the Kishony and Lenski evolution experiments? If you want to see the correct mathematics for these experiments, you can find those papers here:Just a moment...
and
Just a moment...Where are all your "real scientists'" mathematical explanations of these experiments? The only thing that Taq has said so far is that for a mutation rate of 1e-9 that it takes 3e9 replications for a beneficial mutation to occur. I doubt you understand the significance of this for reptiles evolving into birds and fish evolving into mammals.

I don't think that thousands of mathematicians have taken a close look at what geneticists and evolutionary biologists are doing with their math. If mathematicians take a close look at what geneticists and evolutionary biologists are doing they can easily find out what is wrong with their math. There ideas are not all wrong but they are making fundamental errors at key points of their mathematical analysis and I know where their errors are. For example, in their Markov Chain analysis, they are making an assumption at the beginning of their analysis that gives totally inaccurate predictions. That's right. And it's the same as when the "real scientists" said the earth was flat. They didn't want to give up on their beliefs and accept the mathematical and empirical facts of life. The problem for these pseudo-scientists is that there mathematically irrational understanding of evolution harms people with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. Not at all AZPaul3. You have as much understanding of evolution as most of these "professionals". I do these discussions to get practice debating these issues. Once in a while, I get a challenging argument and I learn something about evolution. You just aren't able to present that challenge.

And these startling revelations of everyone but you being wrong fall on deaf ears here and everywhere you go.That should say something to you, but your delusions are deep set, not to be moved by fact or reality.Keep up the work, Richa ... uh ... Kleinman. No one here nor anywhere is buying your faulty logic, your errant math and your insistence on superiority. You've got a long long way to go.BTW, The "real scientists" since before Aristotle knew the earth was round. It was your fellow delusionals that insisted otherwise in the face of what the science already knew. Just like your present contention.Ego-driven, delusional, anti-science, anti-reality. You need to go have that looked at.

So you know better than every scientist? That smells cranky. Only if the model is based on accurate observations of reality. The mathematics is always secondary.