Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

If you claim that a rock in your backyard is why science was able to get a ship to the moon, we would have to ask the connection. When you cite things on earth like a computer as relating to the cosmological models of deep space, we need to ask the connection. You don't get to misfire, and then use the word idiot as if it helps you.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

I've told you several times: They use the same methods. Why would the same methods work in one situation but not another?

You are ranting. You keep repeating that silly mantra as if it meant something. Again, I'm not asking you for every reference to "combination therapy hiv". I'm asking you for evidence that YOUR ideas are more successful than the methods of the people who "don't understand the math". Because that's what scientists do.

At least my ranting explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments. What has your ranting explained? That's not hard, I've published the papers that explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. None of the zero papers published by the fish evolve into mammals clique and explains the math for these two experiments has contradicted these results. Shouldn't I be publishing papers about fish evolving into mammals and reptiles evolving into birds if I want to be a real scientist? I think not. My next paper is going to explain how to use a Markov chain to explain the Kishony experiment instead of the at least one rule. It's like the old saying, "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life". I'm teaching people how evolution works and they can apply the principles to infectious disease, cancers, herbicides, pesticides, rodenticides, any situation where evolutionary processes can defeat your selection pressures. You just think small.

No you're not teaching. The point that everyone has been making to you in this and the other forums we've seen is that all you're doing is spouting into the aether and no one is paying attention. Your own colleagues in both math and genetics ignore you when they are not calling you nuts.Kleinman, you are a crackpot. No one is listening to you. Your audience left the building a long time ago, yet you keep on with the same useless mantra shouting insanely into the vacuum.You are here to beg the attention the professional forums deny you. I think you're sick in the head. You need help.

aether
Another mythological theory brought to you by the fish evolves into mammals clique. Hey, AZPaul3, have you figured out what random means? Is it somewhere between 1 and indeterminant?

Why would throwing a toy airplane in your yard not go to the moon? There are limits to where stuff applies.

You haven't shown us any limits.

No, your ranting about "cliques" doesn't have anything to do with any experiments. Again, that's not what I asked for. I want to see the studies where you show that your METHODS - not your explanations -are more effective at treating cancer, HIV, etc. than the methods used by people who supposedly don't understand the math. Your explanations have no value unless you get results. You should definitely stop that silly rant if you want to be a real scientist.

What experiments have the fish evolves into mammals clique ever explained? Really? You don't think that combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works? Do a search on the subject, you will get 78+ million hits. What have you been reading the last 20 years? And do you know the reason why it works? It's the multiplication rule! I have never ranted that fish evolves into mammals and reptiles evolve into birds. That would be mathematically irrational!

No such clique. Is English not your first language?I'm not questioning combination therapy.I'm asking for evidence that YOU have had better results treating YOUR patients according to YOUR ideas. Didn't you make that claim?A vague Google search ain't gonna cut it. I want to see your idea directly compared with the idea you denigrate - concrete clinical results.

Really? You never heard of that clique? It's a group of people who think that fish evolve into mammals and reptiles evolve into birds. They also think that the multiplication rule doesn't apply to biological evolution. Their office is right next door to the offices of the flat-earth society. What's the matter? It's not enough that there are 78+ million papers and articles out there written by other researchers that show combination therapy successfully works for the treatment of hiv and now you want me to write another? How many references do you need before you will accept the mathematical fact of life of the multiplication rule? If you aren't convinced now, my writing another paper to add to the millions already out there won't make a difference for you. Why don't you make a bumper sticker that says the "multiplication rule doesn't exist"! Was this you trying to learn mathematics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4IQjUpTNVU Maybe you should try Yahoo or Bing, you might get better results.

quote:

---

...people who think that fish evolve into mammals and reptiles evolve into birds.

---

When the flood came we are told God called the created kinds into the ark. Looking at how many millions of adaptations came from the original created kinds, I think it is reasonable to assume that God called the actual original kinds, rather than every variation that may have evolved and adapted from that created kind. That means there was lots of room on the ark. Rather than say, thirty something species of tiger, we maybe just had the one original kind. Etc.Knowing that many thing were fundamentally different in that former time in the world (fast plant growth, people living well over nine centuries etc) I assume that changes and adaptations and evolution occurred at much faster rates than today.So, if I see science claim that dinos and birds seem to be related, it occurs to me that maybe, just maybe some of the original bird kinds may have changed over centuries and adapted in some cases to land and grew in size. I see no reason to rule out that dinos may have been, in some cases, birds that had adapted and evolved. However, when God called the kinds onto the ark, He probably would not have called the dinos, therefore.In this modern nature adapting could not happen so fast.So, by not ruling out that there may have been some evolving in the past from created bird kinds to dinos, do I make it into the clique?

It's spelt 'clinic'.

I think that most in the fish evolve to mammals clique would think that dinos are reptiles and birds evolved from reptiles. You need to understand something about DNA evolution. When the probability of success is so low (the mutation rate), it is going to take a lot of random trials (replications) for that successful outcome. And if you have multiple selection pressures acting on a population simultaneously and those selection pressures don't drive the population to extinction, it's going to take exponentially more replications to accumulate those mutations on a lineage to improve fitness to all the selection pressures. One of the most studied examples of evolution, that of hiv to combination therapy, shows that just 3 selection pressures targeting only 2 genes are sufficient to suppress adaptation of this virus and give successful treatment. The only thing you have in common with the fish evolves to mammals clique is that neither of you understands the mathematics of evolution. At least you are skeptical enough to question the validity of the gross over-extrapolation that this clique does with random mutation and natural selection.