What have we accomplished?

Very few creationists understand introductory probability theory either. Don't make the mistake that something you don't understand is absurd. It makes you sound like one of those fish-to-mammals aficionados.

You would be surprised how simple the mathematics of evolution is. It simply a variation of the coin tossing problem. Most people are very confused by random processes but they are actually very simple. For example, I can't tell you the outcome for any particular coin toss but if you toss the coin many times, about half the time you will get heads and half the time you will get tails. That's because this random process is symmetric (equal probabilities of outcomes). The random mutation problem is identical but is highly asymmetric, that is most of the time the mutation does not occur on replication. The frequency of that random process is the mutation rate. That's why it takes so many replications for just a single occurrence of that beneficial mutation. Once you understand the rules of probabilities, the rest of the math is quite straight-forward. I had to look up Kant to try to get an idea of what you are trying to say here and it looks like some form of legalism. It's not hard to get a sense of who understands this subject and who doesn't. Taq understands exactly what the consequences of this math is and how it affects the theory of evolution. That's why he brought recombination into the debate when talking about DNA evolution. And that's also the reason why he has bailed out of this discussion. I also think that Straggler gets it. The rest of the fish-to-mammals aficionados are simply blowing smoke and haven't figured out that their titanic theory of evolution has hit a massive mathematical and empirical iceberg.

None that someone who thinks they descended from a banana would understand. But I do thank you for helping me write my conclusion to my next paper.

You can't even explain DNA evolution with direct descendants such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Of course, if you want to explain the bananas-to-ringo evolutionary process, we would find that very amusing. And then you can give us your moral justification for cannibalizing one of your cousins every time you eat a banana split.And if you pick the correct genetic loci with only one base difference between you and a banana, plug that into the Jukes-Cantor model, you can show you are a direct descendant to a banana. I guess you would call that banana-picking. If you want to prove that you are a direct descendant to a cherry, you would have to cherry-pick that gene.

Sometimes I need a little help and you did just fine on providing it. And you don't know where the Jukes-Cantor and derivative models are wrong. I've given you all kinds of hints to where the problem is and why it doesn't predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment correctly. And if you actually understood the Jukes-Cantor model, you would find that when using a mutation rate of e-9, it takes 3e9 replications for the model to reach equilibrium. And you can do that calculation without assuming a Poisson's distribution. All you have to do is understand how to calculate Markov chain mathematics directly. But you don't know how to do that math. But I really want you to publish your paper where you show you are a direct descendant of bananas. Just banana-pick the correct gene.

You've been so helpful in my misunderstand until now. Could you please give us a bit more help and show us how you banana-pick a gene from a banana, banana-pick one of your own genes, put that data into the Jukes-Cantor model and show us how you are a direct descendant to a banana?

It appears that jar doesn't understand how the bananas-to-Paulk aficionados do DNA phylogenetics. The first thing you have to do is banana-pick the correct gene to compare. We hope you are sober enough to understand the following:
How do scientists build phylogenetic trees? | The Tech Interactive And we certainly don't want to compare apples to oranges. We want to compare bananas to PaulK, or if you like, to jar.And tell us, do you drink your snake oil from a jar?

PaulK will now explain the difference between neutral evolution and selective evolution using Markov chains. He will then show us how to write the correct transition matrix to include the effects of selection. But first, he's going to use the Jukes-Cantor model to show how he is directly related to bananas.

Of course, you won't give us the explanation of how to include selection in the Jukes-Cantor model. You first have to understand how the Jukes-Cantor model works as written. And you don't. If you want to know how to rewrite the Jukes-Cantor model to include selection, you will have to read my next paper which you so kindly helped lift the writer's block I was having in writing the conclusion to that paper.

You fish to mammals aficionados really have wild imaginations. If you think you understand the Jukes-Cantor model, show us how to solve for the equilibrium time without assuming a Poisson distribution. You won't because you don't understand this math. I know how to do that and the math is easy. Any high school student can do the math if they passed an introductory algebra course, that is if you understand how to do the mathematics of Markov chains. And you don't. Do you know that MIT and Harvard lectures on the mathematics of Markov chains are available on YouTube? You should watch them and learn something about this math. You have a sickness PaulK. If you think that giving the correct explanation for the evolution of drug-resistance and the failure of cancer treatment should be laughed at, there is something wrong with your mind. Why is it so important to you to believe that fish can evolve into mammals when you can't correctly explain simple evolutionary experiments such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments?

So, in your vivid - and sick - imagination, you think you understand the mathematics of the Jukes-Cantor model. The Jukes-Cantor model is a time-dependent problem so it must have some initial condition. Tell us what that initial condition is and whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix.

You don't know! You don't understand the Jukes-Cantor model. You just like blowing smoke. But that's all right, you still helped me with my writer's block.

Don't do it for me, do it for your fellow fish-to-mammals aficionados.The Jukes-Cantor model is a time-dependent problem so it must have some initial condition. Tell us what that initial condition is and whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix.Jump through that hoop for your fellow fish-to-mammals aficionados. I don't need you to do that for me, I can answer that question. You can't. All you can do is blow smoke and very stinky smoke it is.

You claim you understand the Jukes-Cantor model. You are a liar. You can't even tell us what the initial condition for that model is and whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You just blow very stinky smoke. What initial condition will give equilibrium in 1 replication (generation for a nitwit like you)?

I certainly know what the initial condition is for the Jukes-Cantor model and I know whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix and you don't. You are a very stupid liar.