What have we accomplished?

There is nothing wrong with my claim and all you can do is lie about your claim that you understand the Jukes-Cantor model. You can't even tell us whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You are a very stupid liar.

You don't even know whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You are a very stupid and harmful liar.

Whatever abuse I throw on you is nothing compared to the harm you fish-to-mammals aficionados cause with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. And you should tell the peer-reviewers, editors, publishers, and librarians at the National Library of Medicine where my papers can be found that I can't handle the math. And at least I know whether the initial condition of the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix, you big dummy.

Now you are so stupid, you think the drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments don't occur by evolution. Oh really? What evidence you moron? You are the one that doesn't know whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix. Earlier in our discussion, you said something that made me think you might get what the correction needs to be in the Jukes-Cantor model so that it would correctly predict the Kishony experiment. Go back and think about what you said, watch the YouTube videos that I gave links to that talk about how to do Markov chain computations, study the Wikipedia page on DNA evolution, in other words, do your own homework you silly jerk.

Oh, you mean those evolutionary scientists that can't correctly explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. The fish-to-mammals aficionados are having a difficult time explaining the simplest evolutionary experiments.

PaulK really has to expand his reading list beyond fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
And coming soon to you in a real scientific journal near you, "The Kishony Experiment, a Markov Chain Process".

But you do know that fish evolve into mammals and you are descended from bananas. Knowledge just gushes out of you.

The 3 base version of the non-stationary Jukes-Cantor model and a mutation rate of E-9 will take over 1e26 replications (not generations, you dodo) for each successful evolutionary step (and that is not equilibrium). For a mutation rate of e-5 (about that of hiv), it will take about 1e15 replications for each evolutionary step. That's why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. You see, when you write the correct transition matrix for DNA evolution, you get the same results as what you get from this model:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

Those computations were done years ago. The mathematics of abiogenesis is even more irrational than the mathematics of the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis and the TOE are the dumb and dumber of the field of biology. And the fish-to-mammals aficionados think that selection makes the mathematics more rational for the TOE. The only problem is that they don't do the math.

There's no point in discussing my model when the mathematically incompetent PaulK doesn't understand the Jukes-Cantor model and what is simulates physically. Since PaulK can't even tell us what the intial condition is for the Jukes-Cantor model and whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix, (and none of the fish-to-mammals aficionados on this forum can do it as well), I guess I'll have to do it. Put your bibs on fish-to-mammals aficionados as I spoon feed you some mathematics. And remember, don't play with your food, all you do is make a mess that someone else has to clean up. So back to the Wikipedia page on Markov Chain DNA evolution models:
DNA evolution as a continuous-time Markov chain
Then go a little further down the page and find the paragraph titled "Deriving the dynamics of substitution" and you will find the vector equation:
E = {A,G,C,T}
where A, G, C, and T are the frequencies of the particular bases at the particular site being considered. Thus, when i=0 that is time=0, the initial condition, E0 = {A0,G0,C0,T0}. The initial condition is a vector of the frequencies of the different possible bases at the given site. Understand rubberband? Now, you of little understanding, how do you compute the state of the system when i=1, that is, how do you compute E1? Let's see if your dark mind can shed a little light on this subject.

You haven't taken courses in organic and biochemistry, have you? You should listen to James Tour's discussion of this subject. Here's one of his presentations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg
And your last sentence in that quote is quite an understatement. Viruses are replicators but need a host to do that. Do you know what the simplest self-replicating organism is and how many genes in that organism?

I think a central part of this debate is people trying to justify their atheism. Because if there is no god, there is no accountability. But if we were created, we have accountability to our Creator. Our hope is that our Creator is perfect in His justise and perfect in His mercy. The atheist does what is right in their own mind no matter how twisted their mind is.

You can start with yourself. There are people murdering policemen now and don't think they will be held account, unless they are caught. Don't you think you have more choices than a cockroach or a buttercup? Why? Because He tells you not to murder, steal, commit adultery? Then He pays the cost of yours and my accountability? Sure, and they think that whatever they do is right in their own mind no matter how twisted their minds are. And I am showing you how evolution works including a mathematical explanation and empirical evidence. It really upsets atheists when they hear this.

It didn't take much. You are certainly sure of yourself. First you say "there is no other body" and then you say "any faults in the maker's product are down to the maker". So if you use a product in a way it wasn't intended, it's the maker's fault? God even uses the wicked to do his will. But not every act of mass genocide is God's will. Like I said, you are certainly sure of yourself. And the price for sin is blood. So you know everyone who I've ever spoke to? You must work for Google and have some powerful tracking software. What real scientists? Are you talking about the fish-to-mammal aficionados that can't explain the simplest evolution experiments? I certainly know more about evolution than them. It doesn't take much.

It's not hard to tell how little you know about the science of evolution. You have lots of mythical stories, just no math or physics. Does that mean you are ready to explain the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments? Let's see you do that with your mythology about Kiwi birds. For someone so certain on this issue, you aren't doing such a good job explaining the science of evolution. And we have good experimental evidence for that issue. So, when are you going to put the wisdom of the universe to work and explain to us the physics and mathematics of evolution? First you say that there is no God and then you blame the evil in the universe on that God. Maybe the people who do evil should be held to account for that evil. And now you claim that the God that doesn't exist produces manufacturing defects. You really don't want to be held account for the defects you produce, whether they are in manufacturing a chair or explaining evolution. In your mind, no one deserves judgment. No one ever sins. You can't even do your own job and correctly explain the science of evolution. Think of all the people who die of drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments because you don't explain evolution correctly. You have a simple explanation, the God that doesn't exist works in mysterious ways. Maybe so. Is that the hope you live by? So you think that talking with atheists is a waste of time? So, when are you going to explain the Kishony and Lenski evolution experiments. Why don't you use your mythology about Kiwi birds to explain those experiments?