Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

You said, "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." Perhaps Tiktaalik could have evolved into an octopod or a centipod or even a millipod. I've seen replicators like that in the real world. Are you now telling us that it is an impossible adaptation?

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 it to be a tetrapod? The brain actually doesn't have any pain receptors

I will take that as a tacit admission that you have no idea what went on with Tiktaalik genetically. But we do know what goes on with the Kishony experiment. Why do you deny the evidence showing that eukaryotic DNA evolution works the same way as bacterial DNA evolution?
Eukaryotic Adaptation to Years-Long Starvation Resembles that of Bacteria - PMC

What was the number of replications necessary that you came up with if there are two possible beneficial mutations? Wasn't that 1.5e9? Do you want to make it 10 possible beneficial mutations? And how about the next evolutionary step? Do you have 10 or maybe even 100 possible beneficial mutations? Just how many genes and mutations do you need to make a replicator without legs evolve legs? I've never said that you were cloned. You are a bit of a drone.

This post and question are directed at Straggler but any members of your clique can try to answer it.My question has to do with Tiktaalik. If I understand you correctly, you contend that Tiktaalik is a transitional form of some kind of aquatic replicator without limbs (I guess, something like an eel) and ground-dwelling tetrapods. Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages?

We'll take that as an "I don't know" from Mr. 1 to indeterminant.So you think all the geneticists and biologists with the knowledge of all the genetics we have today can't identify the genes which code for limb growth? I guess this reference isn't in your reading list:
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gene-code-limbs.htmlThere are many other references to this subject, but you should continue with sources appropriate to your intellect, comic books. You should limit your posts to the "Faith and Belief" forum. You really aren't prepared for any type of scientific discussion.Any in AZPaul3's clique with scientific training and experience want to try and answer the question: Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages?

I'm not the one claiming that Tiktaalik is a transitional form to tetrapods. I'm the one explaining to you the physics and mathematics of DNA evolution.

Why should I do your job? I've already given you the correct mathematics of DNA evolution. The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that you are ignorant and vulgar. Show us some of your brilliant scientific acumens or join AZPaul3 on the Faith and Belief forum where your pseudo-scientific beliefs belong.

If I were to assign this job to someone, it certainly wouldn't be you. And Edward Tatum has already won the Nobel Prize for this in 1958. He talked about this in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. The only thing I've done is put mathematics to his idea. And any student that has taken high school level probability theory can do this math. I'm really very surprised that none in your clique has already done this. Is that so? I found a really big error in the Jukes-Cantor/Kimura/Felsenstein Markov Chain DNA evolution models. The error is so obvious. Try using their models to simulate the Kishony experiment. I have and you don't get the correct solution. See if you can find their error and correct their math. You won't. Your vulgarity is anything but subtle. If you have a subtlety, it is in your scientific acumen. I don't think you have that subtlety but maybe you can prove me wrong. It doesn't take brilliance to reveal your blunders, all it takes is the understanding of high school level math. Like I say, the only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance and vulgarity. To boot, you want me to do your job. I suppose the error in my hypothesis is my claim that fish don't evolve into mammals and reptiles don't evolve into birds. The correct hypothesis is that evolution takes place in tiny steps and those tiny steps add up to big steps. Well, that hypothesis is half right. Evolution does occur in tiny steps but these steps don't add up because DNA evolution is a stochastic process. These steps are linked to each other by the multiplication rule of probabilities because they are joint random events, not the addition rule of probabilities. And I've shown you how to do the math correctly. Take it or leave it, it's up to you. But if you want to understand DNA evolution correctly, you had better take it. And so should anyone involved in treating infectious diseases and using targeted therapies for treating cancers if you want to play that game of chance. I don't know what you think a scientist should sound like. Perhaps you should try talking with and listening to people outside your mutual admiration society.

What an incredible prediction. You found the fossil of a fish in river sediments. I've never said that it is too improbable find a fossil of fish. But perhaps you will answer this question:
If I understand you correctly, you contend that Tiktaalik is a transitional form of some kind of aquatic replicator without limbs (I guess, something like an eel) and ground-dwelling tetrapods. Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages? If the best prediction you have to offer is that you found the fossil of a fish in river sediments, I'm not impressed. Maybe the members of your clique see something profound with that kind of prediction, I'm not impressed. So, tell us what coding and regulatory genes are needed to make a non-limbed replicator produce limbs, and the selection pressure(s) needed to select for this type of evolutionary transformation.

Why should that surprise me? There are lots of very talented people in the world. Some of them have been my teachers and co-workers. Whatever Unless that evidence is the Kishony experiment. Maybe the Lenski experiment more fits your taste? Either experiment should since they both use e coli. I already have, pay attention. It's in your hypothesis. Microevolutionary changes don't add up to make a macroevolutionary change, they are linked by the multiplication rule because microevolutionary changes are joint random events. Did anyone ever tell you are boring?Edited by Kleinman, : Typo error

That's what happens when you are surrounded by your mutual admiration society. And you are boring.

yawn

That site is long gone, but I learned something very important about evolution from a poster who called himself Myriad in my discussions on that site. Is was an important clue for me on doing the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly. That's why these people in the fish evolve into mammals clique need to start listening to people outside their clique if they want to understand DNA evolution correctly.

It's a fact, Jack. DNA evolutionary changes are random events and if you understand introductory probability theory, joint random events don't add, you have to multiply their probabilities. If you are one of those who argue that microevolutionary changes add up to a macroevolutionary change, you don't understand introductory probability theory. Or at least you don't understand how to apply these principles to DNA evolution. Go over to the "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution?" thread as I walk you through the simple probability mathematics of DNA evolution. And the people in the fish evolve into mammals clique make many small errors in their understanding of DNA evolution but they make a huge blunder when they derive their Markov Chain DNA evolution models. I'll show you exactly where they make their mathematical error. I'm not going to show you how to correct that error. That's for my next paper. But perhaps you can correct that error yourself once I show you where it is and you can prove to us how much you really understand probability theory and how it applies to DNA evolution.