What have we accomplished?

quote:

---

So, in your vivid - and sick - imagination, you think you understand the mathematics of the Jukes-Cantor model.

---

I’ve proven that I understand it better than you, although that is a low bar, accomplished by reading a couple of web pages - both of which you’ve cited.

quote:

---

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.

---

I really don’t have to jump through hoops for you.

quote:

---

You don't know! You don't understand the Jukes-Cantor model. You just like blowing smoke.

---

If that was true I wouldn’t be so successful in pointing out your grievous errors.

quote:

---

Don't do it for me, do it for your fellow fish-to-mammals aficionados.

---

You’re the one asking for it.So, let’s see your understanding. Have you worked out why this claim is wrong yet? ( Message 94 )

quote:

---

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

---

You certainly don’t let up on the projection. But you’re the one who claim to be the expert. I just claim that you don’t even know as much as I do.

quote:

---

What initial condition will give equilibrium in 1 replication (generation for a nitwit like you)?

---

Does this have anything to do with answering my question? If so you’ll have to explain the relevance. Because if you do understand your error rudely asking questions is a rather odd way to admit it.

quote:

---

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

---

But you don’t know what’s wrong with your claim. And you don’t even know why you asked:

quote:

---

You are a very stupid liar.

---

Do you really think that resorting to abuse will cover up your failures?

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with my claim

---

Then you don’t understand Jukes-Cantor. What’s even worse is that I already explained the problem to you. And you still don’t understand it.

quote:

---

You are a very stupid liar.

---

Keep up with the pointless abuse. It just shows what a fraud you are.

Obviously all you can do is throw abuse.You certainly can’t handle the math.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you tell worse lies. Big deal.

quote:

---

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.

---

That would only be possible if they were your papers. The evidence of this thread - and the others you are participating in here - indicates that you aren’t capable of having written them.But if you are capable of handling the math, if you aren’t just blowing smoke let’s discuss your corrections to Jukes-Cantor. And the problems you don’t see.So, describe the form of your model. Do you model the changes to each base as a Markov chain as Jukes Cantor does?

quote:

---

Now you are so stupid, you think the drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments don't occur by evolution.

---

No, I just don’t believe your accusation that evolutionary scientists are to blame. An accusation made without evidence.

quote:

---

Oh really? What evidence you moron?

---

The catalog of evasions and errors that make up your posting history.

quote:

---

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.

---

And look another error and another evasion. You want me to tell you how you decided to fix Jukes-Cantor to make it do something it shouldn’t do. Well I don’t know what you decided to do, because I don’t read minds.

More evasion. You can’t describe your model because you don’t have one or know how to build one.

I’ve read those papers. I’m not sure you have. You certainly didn’t read those web pages about the Jukes-Cantor model. Let alone any more authoritative source. Nobody writing a scientific paper relating to that model could be as ignorant of it as you were,Which is how I know you aren’t writing a paper and don’t have a model.

If you had a model you could talk about it. You could show that I was wrong. But you don’t because I’m right.(And you really think that a 2 base Jukes-Cantor would be worth worth doing and a 3 base version isn’t? Message 1891. Oh dear, oh dear.)

quote:

---

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).

---

Oh, you mean a model which requires three bases to change? In sequence? Well that isn’t very sensible. Not that the two base model would be worth doing either. Of course models of selection aren’t Jukes-Cantor or corrections of Jukes-Cantor - even if you only track one base. I’m sorry for thinking that you might at least have been considering the real problems of modelling the Kishony experiment with a Markov chain.But there is a very sensible reason why a model that uses selection might want to track three bases and not two.But you don’t know it because you don’t have a model and aren’t even trying to build one.

quote:

---

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

---

Then since I know it well enough to correct your errors on a number of occasions it would follow that you are incapable of creating a corrected version. Not least because you don’t understand what it’s meant to model. So that’s an implicit admission that you have nothing.As for mathematical incompetence:

quote:

---

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}

---

When I look at that I don’t see a vector equation I see the set of possible states. Why don’t we look at the next line and see what it is?

If I was really that dumb you wouldn’t be so scared of posting your alleged model. Or your arguments.But thank you for providing more evidence that Creationism is just a silly Satan cult.