What have we accomplished?

Why doesn't the fish-to-mammal aficionado from a frozen wasteland allow his brain to thaw out? The multiplication rule of probabilities is not a mantra, it is a mathematical fact of life. You mathematically incompetent ding-dong fish-to-mammals aficionados can't even explain the mathematics of direct descendants correctly. So instead, you banana-pick your genes to do your DNA phylogenetics to show you are related to bananas. This is the kind of stupidity that causes drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

Oh boy, the tangled mind is now going to explain to us the physics and mathematics of evolution. He going to do that by presenting the correct mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski evolution experiments. NOT! Don't confuse your delusions with actually seeing things. You fish-to-mammals aficionados definitely haven't presented the correct mathematics for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And actually, my abacus is made primarily from silicon. And what it says is your notion of fish evolving into mammals is mathematically irrational. What's worse is that your delusions contribute to drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. You should really stop indoctrinating naive school children with your mathematically irrational mythology. It is harming people. Can't any of you atheists do math?

Your faith is blind. Worse than that, your faith is delusional and harmful. You believe that fish evolve into mammals and yet can't explain the physics and mathematics of the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary experiments. You aren't a scientist, you are an atheist zealot with a tangled view of evolution. So, what do you want to discuss, your mythical stories about Kiwi birds? Try taking an introductory course in probability theory so that you could learn something about stochastic process such as DNA evolution. High school students can understand that subject.

Sure, I've said it many times. In your faith, you believe that fish evolve into mammals while at the same time you can't explain the simplest evolutionary experiments (Kishony and Lenski experiments). Why does it take a billion replications for each adaptive evolutionary step in these experiments?

Oh? So you don't believe that fish evolve into mammals? My faith tells us to count, that is math. Are you telling us that your faith says you shouldn't count? That's explains why I find it so hard to believe you when you say you are a scientist.

So you think that's a matter of science? What science is that? That's right. So why is your faith devoid of math? You have a blind faith. What was it that you claimed? Didn't you say you had a couple of degrees in the sciences? They must have been very soft sciences without any mathematics. Did they do any kind of accounting in your studies? There is a pattern in evolution. If you studied some mathematics, you might understand that pattern. Evolution is very easy to understand once you recognize the patterns demonstrated in the Kishony and Lenski experiments. I have, you just are not listening. One of the things my religion tells us to do is count. Do you want me to show you the Bible verses? So, why does your religion tell you not to count?

Don't be stupid, I totally get your point. You are stating that it takes many transitions to genetically transform fish into mammals, millions if not billions of genetic transformations. Why are you so mathematically incompetent that you can't explain the mathematics of a single one of those genetic transformations? And you stop spreading your mathematically irrational nonsense.

So you say you are qualified to be a scientist, you just aren't paid to be one? What makes you think that you are qualified to say that fish evolve into mammals? You aren't a scientist. Do you believe everything that is said to you. If you do, you are very naive. You must think I'm a Christian for the same reason I think you are an atheist. And I do accept that evolution occurs and based on my scientific training and experience, I write papers explaining the physics and mathematics of the phenomenon, something you should learn about if you think that fish evolve into mammals. What does your religion have against counting? Because that is what you must do to understand evolution. What makes you think that evolution works any different on the microbial level than with more complex replicators? Isn't adaptation by DNA evolution simply the accumulation of specific mutations that improve fitness for those replicators to the environmental selection conditions and it doesn't matter whether it is a lineage of bacteria or a lineage of fish?And I've never done any scientific study on the age of the earth. Sorry, I'm not trained or paid to be a speculator. I leave that kind of work to the fish-to-mammals aficionados.

What scientific qualifications do you have to claim that fish evolving into mammals is a scientific fact? What physical laws, what mathematical principles substantiate your claim? You would be if you wanted to understand how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You just want to blame God for everything wrong in the world. What makes you think that someone quoting from the Bible is Christian? Lots of atheists (and those who rebel from God) like to quote from the Bible. Their favorite verse is the "judge not" verse. And you aren't interested in fact, otherwise, you would attempt to understand the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Then why do you blame God for all the evil in the world? Perhaps in your twisted logic, evil has a selective advantage? Oh, that's right, you aren't interested in evolution. Sorry, I haven't really thought about that question. I've put my thought time into understanding how evolution works. And the scientific explanation of evolution is completely different than that presented by the fish-to-mammals aficionados. And the fish-to-mammals aficionados' explanation not only is wrong, but it is also harmful leading to drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. And that isn't conjecture, that is fact.

Sure it does. Remember when you said this Message 181? The Bible says nothing like this. Of course, if you think it does, you would point out the verse(s). I'm not the one changing the subject. I started my discussions on this forum debating the physics and mathematics of evolution. It is you who doesn't have either the scientific or mathematical training to discuss this subject and is trying to change the subject. I really don't blame you for doing this because if you actually tried to discuss and debate evolution, it would reveal how ignorant you are of the topic. Do all atheists believe that counting is of no consequence? Because in my faith, we are told to count. So, who do blame for the evil in the world? Did you ever consider yourself? Whether you think it is disingenuous or not, it's a fact. I have not done any kind of scientific study on the age of the earth. And I am a scientist, it just happens that my area of study is the physics and mathematics of evolution. So, do you think that fish evolving into mammals is an opinion of yours or is it a scientific fact? And if you think it is a scientific fact, what is the science behind your claim? Now don't change the subject! Don't be silly. I've told you lots about my religious beliefs. For example, my religion tell us to count. And I've applied those principles to evolution and published papers explaining DNA evolution and the mathematics governing that phenomenon. It is you who doesn't explain how fish evolve into mammals. In fact, you can't even explain correctly a single base evolutionary transition. Exactly what areas of science are you qualified in?

The multiplication rule of probabilities is the reason you fish-to-mammals aficionados are wrong.

I didn't make that one up. But it does a really good job describing those who think that fish evolve into mammals (or even that fish and mammals (and bananas) are distant relatives).

In case you didn't notice, I quoted you exactly as you wrote it. And what makes you think that you don't deserve what those got in the flood? This thread is about goals and accomplishments. Message 1
My goal being here is to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of evolution (the subject of this web site) and I've published multiple papers on the subject. Now, you want to change the subject and talk about the age of the earth. At least you know that you need a lot of time for your silly theory to have any reasonable probability of being true. Since you can't tell us how long it takes for the Kishony and Lenski evolutionary processes to work, perhaps you want to calculate for us the amount of time necessary for fish to evolve into mammals? But you to believe, whoops, think it is a scientific fact that fish evolve into mammals. Why are you so shy? Why don't you tell us what your scientific training is? You can't explain the physics and mathematics of evolution so you resort to silly claims. If you think I've done scientific studies on the age of the earth, where are these publications on that subject. This is just your lame atheistic way of trying to change the subject from the physics and mathematics of evolution, a subject which you are ignorant of. That's not a subject of this thread. The subject of this thread are goals (mine is to correctly explain the physics and mathematics of evolution) and accomplishments (I've published numerous papers on the subject in the last 7 years and more to come). So, tangled mind, what are your goals and what have you accomplished? So you think this web site is not about evolution and this thread is not about goals and accomplishments. Has anyone ever told you that you have some difficulty with comprehension? What is your goal with believing (or thinking it is scientific fact) that fish evolve into mammals and what scientific work have you accomplished to verify this belief?

How can I make my answers any more straight. My goal is to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of evolution and I've accomplished this by having numerous papers peer-reviewed and published on this topic including the correct mathematical description of the Lenski and Kishony evolutionary experiments. I understand that your pseudo-scientific indoctrination doesn't allow you to believe this but if you think I'm wrong, please point to the specific errors either in the physics, the mathematics or both. I have tried to correct your confusion on the physics and mathematics of evolution but you persist on wanting to change the subject. You really should try to stay on topic, you might learn something.

Why have you lost interest in discussing the physics and mathematics of evolution? Is it that you can't justify your beliefs? I've posted in very few threads, only about 5. And the reason why I joined the discussion on this thread is that you accused Phat of not understanding science. Message 75
I think it is you who does not properly understand science. The facts have changed and you don't have the capability to change your mind. That's why you continue to try to change the subject. Answer this question and it is on topic. What is your scientific explanation for fish evolving into mammals? Well duh. Everyone knows you have no scientific understanding of the physics and mathematics of evolution. None of you fish-to-mammal aficionados have demonstrated any qualifications on this subject. I wonder why you have lost interest in discussing science. Come one, tell us why your kind think that fish evolve into mammals? Oh, that's right, you aren't qualified. Is there someone on this forum that is qualified? Ok Tangle, prepare yourself, I'm going to give you a straight answer. I am not a fish-to-mammals aficionado. That would be scientifically and mathematically irrational. Are there any atheists with some proficiency with math on this forum?