Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

dad got the spelling right. It is you who got the mathematics of evolution wrong.

Well, practically everybody who has studied biology knows that something slightly like that happened but they wouldn't put it in such a childish way. And it's certainly no clique. Not near enough. You haven't demonstrsted that ANY of those papers support your position. For the umpteenth time, this is not about your mathematical model. This is about concrete evidence that your model works better - in real life - than the conventional model. You need clinical tests for that.

That's all your childish theory is worth. If the members of your fish evolve into mammals clique had any real understanding of evolution, you would have explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments long ago. All those papers support the fact that combination selection pressures suppress the evolutionary process. If you think otherwise, find one of those 78+ million papers that show otherwise. You won't. Are all you in the fish evolve into mammals clique this lazy and this mathematically incompetent? Of course, it is, this is all about explaining correctly how evolution works. You just can't prove it is wrong either mathematically or empirically so you want me to post 78+ million links to show it is correct. All you have to do is post one link that shows it's incorrect. You won't because the model I've presented is correct. And you certainly won't prove it is mathematically incorrect. They don't teach you how to do this math in your dumbbell math courses. You have to take the mathematics for scientists courses to do this math and we all know you aren't a scientist, otherwise, you wouldn't believe that fish evolve into mammals, which is mathematically irrational.

You've read all 78+ papers, have you? That strikes me as a bold-faced lie.In any case, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not YOUR ideas improve the results. And I'm only asking for ONE paper that backs you up. Since you have failed to produce even one, I'm inclined to conclude that there are none.

All you have to do is find one that doesn't support the math I've presented and prove it. You won't, you are all talk, no action. Sure this math improves the results. The editors of one of my papers asked how you would apply this math when treating cancer. So I included this following paragraph in the paper.
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance If the clinician can estimate the number of cells in the cancer, the clinician can estimate the number of resistant variants will be in that population which gives guidance on the number of targeted selection pressures needed to give a high probability of successful treatment.In fact, several years ago I presented one of my papers at an oncology conference. I had a discussion with one of the oncologists who told me he had a treatment for malignant melanoma and that this treatment even with severely metastasized cancers could knock out the cancer but only for about 6 weeks. What many people do not recognize is that cancer cells are not exact clones and unless your targeted treatment kills 100% of variants, you will have treatment failure. His treatment killed 99+% of the cancer cells, but that wasn't enough. He needs a second drug with a different target or a different drug that works on the same target but in a different way than the first drug. If the number of cells in the tumor is on the order of e12, it will most likely take 3 targeted drugs for successful treatment. That's what this math gives you.

So you don't even deny being a liar. How does math improve a patient's health? And how did they respond?

I never said I read all 78+ million papers on hiv. All I've said is that none of the papers contradict the math that I've presented. Either you are too stupid to find a single paper among all those millions of papers that contradicts that math, or the paper doesn't exist. So get to work lazy clique member and find that paper. It tells you how many targeted selection pressures needed to give a high probability of treating infections and cancers. If you read the paper I linked to, I developed the math based on a failure of two-drug therapy for treating malaria. There are possible reasons for this but one not considered in that study was the possibility of de novo evolution of resistance. Malaria can achieve very high parasite loads, even up to e12 parasites. With that number of members in a population, you will have a high probability of double-drug resistant variants already in the population before treatment has started. That's the formula for treatment failure. These are general principles of how evolution works. You can apply these principles to herbicides and pesticides as well as antimicrobial and cancer treatments. They published the paragraph with the rest of the paper. And one of the editors is one of the statistics editors for the New England Journal of Medicine. He totally got the point.

quote:

---

I think that most in the fish evolve to mammals clique would think that dinos are reptiles and birds evolved from reptiles.

---

Right, and I hear some think dinos came from birds. But most are as ill informed as you suggest.

quote:

---

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.

---

I do not accept that nature was the same since no one really knows. So I do not need to be limited by how things work at the present time. Nor do I think that in the different past adapting was random. I think that God gave us the ability to adapt (evolve) to the big world and all the conditions and environments we may encounter. So if a man needed to adapt to more sun, well, we could have our skin and bodies adapt fast. If a fish needed to be able to traverse watery areas with land also, well, I think they could probably have done so as needed. (rather than randomly)
It is more than probable that genetics in a different nature would work differently that today. The forces that make atoms do what they do, and cells and molecules etc all have a part to play in DNA. Unless these were the same we would expect differences in life and how genetics worked. That may be one reason man could evolve so fast after the flood, and could have lived over nine hundred years etc.
So modern DNA can't be traced back as far as Noah or Adam probably.

quote:

---

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 way genes respond to pressure would depend on nature at the time pressures existed. In the former nature, it seems likely that many diseases and viri or whatever simply didn't affect us as they do now. (if they existed at the time at all). So it is interesting how today's DNA works and responds, but that does not carry over to Noah's day.

quote:

---

The only thing you have in common with the fish evolves to mammals clique is that neither of you understands the mathematics of evolution.

---

That is irrelevant if nature was not the same because evolving happening there was not like the present anyhow.

quote:

---

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.

---

The way genes worked had nothing to do with random mutation as we know it. If we think about it, if life was created, then all evolving is after the fact anyhow. To credit modern evolving with being responsible for life on earth is deeply religious dogma.

You keep saying really really stupid stuff like that.Of course everyone but the Christian Cult of Ignorance (use peek) knows.In fact we have examples of people that were living while Adam and Family would still have been living if they had ever existed. Not just do we have the body to examine, we have the clothing and tools and shoes and what he ate and what things his clothes were made from and what pollin and plants he had with him, and they are all exactly the same as what we find today.You really need to stop making us look quite so stupid; you are an embarrassment to all on Christianity.Grow up.Learn.Stop believing the total crap that you have been saddled with by the Christian Cult of Ignorance and fantasy.We have samples of materials from tens of thousands of years before the Garden of Eden would have existed and even the remains of cities from thousands of years before the Garden of Eden would have existed.Grow up.Stop behaving like a child.Put all your childish nonsense aside.

quote:

---

You keep saying really really stupid stuff like that.

​

Of course everyone but the Christian Cult of ********* (use peek) knows.

​

In fact we have examples of people that were living while Adam and Family would still have been living if they had ever existed.

---

In fact you have wrong dates based on beliefs only. Show the basis for your dates. I can use a laugh.It is not those who believe God that make believers look silly. On the contrary, it is the lukewarm. You know what they make God want to do.

quote:

---

We have samples of materials from tens of thousands of years before the Garden of Eden would have existed and even the remains of cities from thousands of years before the Garden of Eden would have existed.

---

You believe real hard. we get it. The truth is that you cannot support the dates. Really. Come on over to the winning side.

Let’s see if we can list what constitutes evidence for you:1. Whatever was written down thousands of years ago, by some members of a specific tribe of Bronze Age hunter gatherers (but not anything written down by any other of the local tribes of Bronze Age hunter gatherers whom they used to go around merrily murdering and raping; nor anything written down by any other ancient people around the world) - and moreover, (I’m guessing) a very specific translation into English of those writings.Have I missed anything ?If I have, and you want to add to the list, be careful - there are bear traps....

How about two modern evolutionary experiments that show it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary transition (mutation) for adaptation. What does that do for your theory of evolution? Have I missed anything? That is have I missed anything other than you in the reptiles evolve into birds clique can't do math.

No need to worry - I may have secured you the recognition you so clearly crave - I’ve given your name to Merriam Webster so that they can refine their definition of hubris.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

You English have certainly come a long way since the time your people produced the King James Bible translation and produced scientists like Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday. Now you think that the correct explanation of modern evolutionary experiments is hubris. When did you decide that mathematics should no longer be part of the English educational system?

You cited them as support for your work. How could you know whether they agreed or disagreed with you without reading them? Again, how could you know that without reading them? On the contrary, you have been unable to cite a single paper among all those millions that supports your math. I'm not interested in other people's failures. I'm asking about your successes - actual clinical studies that show your method working better - i.e. curing more patients - than the other methods. If there were any, I should think you'd know about them. So why can't you cite any?