Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

You only think you do.

You can't even explain how evolution works.

Here's some mathematical brilliancy from PaulK. This quote is from the thread "Do you really understand the mathematics of evolution" Message 237: I don't expect the mathematically incompetent to understand the mathematics of evolution. Perhaps if we get a high school student to tutor you PaulK, you might make some progress.

Very impressive source for your wisdom. Too bad you aren't a reasonably intelligent enough chap to understand high school level mathematics. Otherwise, you would smell the crap from this notion that you evolved from some simple replicator that spontaneously occurred in some mythical primordial soup.And where are these mythical scientists? PaulK? You have to be kidding. Taq started a little bit of debate and got the 3e9 replications for each beneficial mutation right but then bailed out. You should try to expand your philosophical foundation beyond silly American sitcoms.

PaulK is now going to explain the mathematics of evolution. Not! Hey PaulK, why don't you write a book explaining DNA phylogenetics? You could show how you are descended from bananas.

Do you think it is disrespectful if someone says your opinion is wrong and then shows you why? This is a thread about teaching evolution and religion in school. My argument is that the fish evolves into mammals clique does not teach evolution, they teach a mythological interpretation of the phenomenon. And it doesn't amuse me at all because I have to deal with drug-resistant infections. Biological evolution is not that difficult to understand if you are willing to let go of your preconceived notions about the phenomenon. When you do, it becomes obvious why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary transitional step. Hmmm

It's easy with you and your understanding of good and evil. I'm just putting the blame on this one where it belongs. You got me on that one. I have an ulterior motive. When it became clear that I got the mathematics for Markov chain DNA evolution correct, I don't have any problem explaining the math or the results you get from the math. The Kishony experiment clearly shows this mathematical behavior. So, when I got to the "conclusion" portion of the paper, I hit writer's block and couldn't see how to write the conclusion. That's when I decided to start this discussion here and it worked perfectly. PaulK's posts on DNA phylogenetics were particularly helpful. It became quite clear how to write a conclusion. You see, I respect the opinions of the fish evolves into mammals cliques, even if it is wrong. I'll soon be submitting this paper for peer-review and publication. The only thing remaining is the data for the Kishony experiment if he were to use 2 drugs (or the step increase in drug-concentrations requires two mutations) instead of one. Markov chain calculations can be very computation-intensive (lots of matrix multiplications). For the mutation rate of 1e-9, that calculation takes over 100 trillion transitions and my computer can only do about 1.5 trillion transitions/day. That solution is nicely converging on the solution I obtained using the "at least one rule" in my previous publication on the subject. It's always nice to see that you get consistent results using different mathematical approaches to the same physical problem and those results correlate correctly with the experiment.

vimesey is no farmer but apparently has lost his sense of smell when he can't smell the manure piled right under his nose by that wider scientific community. That's why he's part of the problem of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. The English education system has really gone downhill since the time of Newton and Darwin.

You in the fish evolves into mammals clique really have trouble paying attention. Read my explanation to vimesey in Message 1811 why I'm here. And why should anyone believe that you write scientific papers? I put links to my papers. You just babble. The problem is that the fish evolves into mammals clique don't understand how to do high school level mathematics. I'll get heard on this paper on Markov process mathematics models of DNA evolution because the model I've formulated predicts real empirical examples of evolution. I won't bungle the math like the fish evolve into mammals clique has. Do you mean those critics who think that your ancestors spontaneously occurred in some medieval primordial soup and evolved into people who claim they are scientists without ever proving it? Even someone who isn't a farmer can smell that pile of manure. I just look at the fish evolve into mammals clique's mathematics, find the blunders and correct the math. And I do want to thank PaulK's muddling in this discussion. It helped me make headway in writing the conclusion for my next paper. No bother. In fact, all the squealing we are getting from the fish evolves into mammals clique confirms that the target has been hit. But we would all like to see one of your papers. Has it been published in a fossil tea-leaf reading journal or has it been published in a real scientific journal where they do hard mathematical science?

What makes you think you were ever in? All you have done is bragged about something you won't prove and squeal about the physics and mathematics of evolution which you don't understand. You are the troll and a crank and you harm people with your ignorance of evolution and deceive naive school children with your mythology. ir sin dios

We all know that you know nothing about stochastic processes. That's the mathematics of random events for those living in AZPaul3land. AZPaul3, stay away from Las Vegas before you lose everything you have. But I do thank you for helping me to write the conclusion to my next paper. When are you going to use Markov Chain mathematics and DNA phylogenetics to prove that you descended from bananas?

If the fish-to-mammal aficionados had gotten something out of their dumbbell math courses perhaps it would get a better reception in the fossil tea-leaf journals. On the other hand, this math can be understood by any high school student who passed an introductory probability theory course and this may be the reason why the fish-to-mammal aficionados' refuse to accept this math. The Kishony and Lenski experiments (and all the real, measurable, and repeatable examples of DNA evolution) and their associated mathematical behavior reveals the fish-to-mammal aficionados delusions. AZPaul3, you have blindly bought into an irrational belief system. This is the biggest scientific blunder since the flat-earth argument.

Me and the peer-reviewers, editor and publishers of my papers, the librarians at the National Library of Medicine where you can find my papers and why don't you check out the people at the bottom of this link where I was asked to explain this math to people like you that haven't even studied high school level mathematics:
Page not found - Stats & Data Science Views
I don't expect the fish-to-mammal aficionados to understand this math.

The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection - PubMed
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance - PMC
Random recombination and evolution of drug resistance - PubMed
You simpleton fish-to-mammal aficionados really need to expand your reading list beyond fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine if you want to understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. People are being harmed by your stupidity. And the mathematically incompetent such as the fish-to-mammal aficionados such as you. Clearly, the explanation went over your head. It appears we need a high schooler to explain this math to you.

Somebody has to explain the mathematics of evolution correctly, the fish-to-mammals aficionados certainly haven't done it. Only those academic institutions operated by people familiar with introductory probability theory. I don't expect the institutions operated by the fish-to-mammals aficionados will accept these mathematical and empirical facts of life. They disrupt their delusions. Wrong headline (and why should we be surprised?). The headline will read "The Mathematics of Evolution Correctly Explained". That headline will not be seen in any fish-to-mammals aficionado journals or Mad magazine. I'm showing you how common descent works. Each evolutionary step on an evolutionary trajectory to improved fitness in common descent takes a billion replications. And I understand how difficult it is for you fish-to-mammals aficionados to grasp this math so I'll keep it as simple as possible. It is because of mutation rates of e-9 and if you throw in the multiplication rule, you have the mathematics of common descent. See how easy it is to see when you are standing on the shoulders of giant? Your problem is you are standing on the shoulders of the delusional.