What have we accomplished?

You can't even explain the Jukes-Cantor model, you don't understand what a Markov chain process is. You should study the Harvard and MIT lectures videos on YouTube so you might not blow so much stinky smoke. That's right you mathematically incompetent numbskull. This Jukes-Cantor Markov process consists of 4 possible states at the particular site that when you multiply that vector by the transition matrix gives the next state of the system. You don't have to parameterize the system to time in order to calculate the transitions of the system. You can simply multiply the state vector by the transition matrix to get the next state of the system, it is a simple recursion relationship. Since it is clear that you don't understand the Harvard and MIT lectures on this subject, watch this example of how you set up and calculate a Markov process by direct matrix multiplication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvYTGEZQTEs

I've already given you so many hints that you should able to post the model yourself. You are just too mathmatically incompetent to do the math yourself. You will have to wait until the paper gets published to see how to do the math. But you won't understand that either. I doubt that many of you fish-to-mammals aficionados will understand the math and physics. You are too busy writing your mythology about evolution.But I do want to thank you for helping to lift my writers' block.

Of course, I understand the problems I will encounter. They are the same problems that people encountered when they told the flat-earthers that the earth isn't flat. You fish-to-mammals aficionados have been doing the math wrong for so long that you can't even imagine there is a correct way of doing the mathematics of evolution. But I do find it amusing that by correctly banana-picking the gene that you can show that you are related to bananas. There's a paper and I added a little more today thanks to you. And maybe it will add a little knowledge to the descendants of bananas.

OK, so what's the simplest self-replicating organism that doesn't require a host to replicate and how many genes does it have?

You have so many doubts. But you don't doubt that fish evolve into mammals and that you are a descendant of bananas. So you think the earth is flat as well! No wonder you have no doubts that you descended from bananas. That explains your split from reality.

It's not quite 11 published papers, it's 2 papers and a PhD dissertation on thermodynamics and heat transfer, 6 papers on evolution, and the layman's abstract. My next paper will make 11. I wrote quite of few papers for internal use when I worked in the aerospace industry but they all pertained to heat transfer. That's nothing like the numbers produced by the fish-to-mammals factories. Of course, none of those papers correctly explain how evolution works. But even the stale fish-to-mammals aficionados sometimes gives me inspiration and it always gives me exercises in dealing with bad logic.

You really are a moron PaulK, I've never said I published 11 papers. And just because you are too stupid to understand the basic principles of Markov chains and how to apply them to the Jukes-Cantor model and how it is applied to DNA phylogenetics, don't blame me. I've pointed you to numerous references that explain these concepts. You are just too dumb to understand them. And where are PaulK's papers that explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments? All PaulK can do is whine and say Kleinman is wrong and insulting. Take a course in introductory probability theory and pass the course and find out why you are wrong.

AZPaul3's idea of sanity is that fish evolve into mammals. Too bad he can't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Then he could give the correct explanation for the evolution of drug-resistance and cancer treatment failures. Your continuing lunacies are harming people with your mythology.

It's only anonymous if you choose it. And with the garbage you spout, I see why you would want to remain anonymous. And weren't you the one who claimed to be a scientist, you liar? Fish evolving into mammals! No one should be skeptical of that claim. So where is your explanation of the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Oh, and I tried to debate this subject with Felsenstein and challenged him to do the mathematics of the Lenski experiment. He said he wouldn't do it, it would take too much time.Edited by Kleinman, : typo

Is that all you can do is whine? Where're your papers explaining the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. You are such a crybaby PaulK and not very well educated.

Prove it or just continue to be the liar you are. You haven't measured anything. You just babble nonsense about Kiwi birds. If only you fish-to-mammals aficionados could correctly explain the physics and mathematics of the Lenski and Kishony experiments, but that kind of physics and mathematics is not in your indoctrination. Too bad for those suffering from drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. Why don't you try to put the world right for them? So now in your tangled mind you add paranoia to your delusions. Is the correct explanation of the physics and mathematics of evolution that frightening to you?

lol

I'd post more about math and physics but you were not indoctrinated into those scientific disciplines. Just retreat back into your pseudo-scientific delusional world that you use to justify your atheism.

Oh, no! There is plenty more to say to the tin-foil hat wearing fish-to-mammals aficionados. The tin-foil hat wearing fish-to-mammals aficionados still need to learn how to do DNA phylogenetics correctly.

There is no end to the fish-to-mammals aficionados' fiction story telling. Too bad you fish-to-mammals aficionados don't understand physics and math. You might be able to tell a non-fiction story about evolution.