Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

It leaves you utterly unable to explain the vast plethora of evidence that evolution occurred. It leaves you in direct contradiction of the fossil record, geology and genetic evidence of common descent including (as you are into mathematical modelling) molecular and computational phylogenetics.If you want to supercede all of that you are going to need something more than dismissing it all as the fish turn into mammals clique.

If you feel compelled to explain some plethora with silly mythology to naive children, please don't. It's much more important for naive school children to learn the mathematical and physical facts of life of how evolution works. After all, if you don't think that drug-resistance is getting worse, you have lost contact with reality.

"Whatever" means that you have nothing substantive to say. In this specific instance it means that you can't back up your claim about your math having any medical value. If you could, you should have presented your evidence long ago.Edited by ringo, : Misplaced coulda/woulda/shoulda.

"Whatever" means your reading list is limited to fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine. You and the rest of your fish evolve into mammals clique really need to expand your whatever reading list to include some scientific papers. Those are the papers that explain the physics and mathematics of evolution.Edited by Kleinman, : Typo

There is no evidence of TOE. Any evolving in the past could have happened with created kinds. There is no need to assume that some evolving and adapting mean that all life originated by evolving itself.Nor is there any reason to assume the evolving happened the same way we see things evolve now. (that would just be assuming a same nature in the past). Nor is there any reason to assume modern genetics are the same and work the same (as above). Nor is there any reason to assume the fossil record represents anything but a tiny percentage of the variety of life that lived on earth. (science assumes a same nature in the past where all animals had an equal chance of leaving remains). Nor is there any reason to think that similar animals in the fossil record had to have evolved from each other.

Nope. I said: I don't think "anything else must be made up", just all of your BS. It is your fictional delusion.

Nope. Your religious and vacuous spam is boring.

And your repetitious fantasy fiction BS is less than thrilling.

We have established that we like each other I guess. I don't like your beliefs being taught in schools.

I've given you ample opportunities to present ANY papers that support your position in the REAL world - i.e. with actual medical results. You clearly don't have any.

whatever. And if you have trouble with the meaning of that word, look it up.

what's the mathematics of this evolving from photon cell in nature?Edited by a servant of Christ, : No reason given.

Over the past few decades, there have been extensive searches for evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." Among the methods used have been astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, searches for variations of planetary radii and moments of inertia, investigations of orbital evolution, searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, and (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.One powerful approach has been to study the "Oklo Phenomenon," a uranium deposit in Gabon that became a natural nuclear reactor about 1.8 billion years ago; the isotopic composition of fission products has permitted a detailed investigation of possible changes in nuclear interactions. Another has been to examine ratios of spectral lines of distant quasars coming from different types of atomic transitions (resonant, fine structure, and hyperfine). The resulting frequencies have different dependences on the electron charge and mass, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, and can be used to compare these parameters to their present values on Earth. Solar eclipses provide another sensitive test of variations of the gravitational constant. If G had varied, the eclipse track would have been different from the one we calculate today, so the mere fact that a total eclipse occurred at a particular location provides a powerful constraint, even if the date is poorly known.So far, these investigations have found no evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." The current observational limits for most constants are on the order of one part in 10 to the 10 to one part in 10 to the 11 per year. So to the best of our current ability to observe, the fundamental constants really are constant.Have physical constants changed with time?

Okay:

quote:

---

"said as a response indicating a reluctance to discuss something, implying indifference, skepticism, or exasperation."

---

That's what I said. It indicates you running away.[shakes head]Can you really be as stupid as you pretend to be?

What's a "photon cell"?