Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

So let’s assume you are correct. Let’s assume that evolution - AKA descent of all species on Earth from common ancestry - is mathematically impossible.What’s your alternate explanation for the existence of mammals and reptiles and insects and birds? How did different species come about? How did different kinds(?) come to be? How does this alternate explanation account for the fact that all known life shares the same genetic code? And how likely is that in terms of your statistical analysis?

Not my job... What a cop-out.Meanwhile the job of science teachers is to teach the best evidenced and scientifically accepted explanation for the observable phenomena in question.Are you suggesting that kids should be taught that the existence of birds, mammals, reptiles etc. is a complete scientific mystery with no evidenced explanation? Are you suggesting that all of the geological evidence, fossil evidence and dna evidence pertaining to common ancestry should simply be ignored? Or even be deemed refuted because you’ve got some stats? Really?If not evolution - What is it you are proposing be taught in school with regard to the origin of species? Please do tell.

Well that is quite a claim. The entirety of established science regarding common ancestry and the origin of species is to be discarded because.......you have a mathematical model...?Is that what you are saying?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Try to answer the question.Are you seriously claiming that your mathematical model overthrows the entirety of the evidence for common ancestry and evolution? Fossils. Geology. Genetic code. Etc. And the predictions and discoveries (the gold standard test of any scientific theory) that this has led to. E.g. Tiktaalik.This thread is about what should be taught in schools. So I will ask again - Your position regarding what should be taught about the origins of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles etc. is what? That it’s a mystery because your stats say so?I think you can’t/won’t answer that explicit question because even you can see how delusionally conceited that sounds when you spell it out like that. The whole world is wrong. Except you...Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I’ve followed your ramblings on a site with other mathemetical modellers. They challenged you to apply your theory in an actual side by side simulation to show specifically where your model would diverge from accepted science.You were challenged to identify a well specified question, answerable with a simulation, where your model and the scientifically accepted model would give different results that could then be compared to observable results.As far as I can see you ran away from that challenge.

How does your model explain the existence of Tiktaalik?Here is a shining example of an evolutionary discovery pertaining to the prehistoric past. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik

quote:

---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

---

What does your theory say about the existence of transitionals such as Tiktaalik?

So - To cut a long story short - Your theory dictates that transitional fossils such as Tiktaalik can’t exist.But they do.Read the Tiktaalik example again. This wasn’t just found by aimlessly digging around. Knowledge of geology and evolutionary common ancestry were combined to PREDICT where such a fossil would exist. Then it was found. As predicted.How does your theory account for the predictive power of evolution with regard to transitionals whilst simultaneously proclaiming transitionals to be impossible?The It’s too unlikely argument has been comprehensively demolished multiple times. Not least by the physical evidence showing evolution to have occurred. Yours is just a mathematically long winded way of making that same mistake.

You are telling me that according to your mathematical model Tiktaalik cannot be the evolutionary transition between swimming fish and their evolutionary tetrapod descendants. The old "It's too unlikely" argument. With some mathematical modelling knobs added on.But the fact that Tiktaalik was actually discovered as a result of predictions based on exactly the combination of geology and evolution from common ancestry that you deny is statistically possible suggests that your model doesn't conform to reality as observed and discovered. This is a serious problem for your theory whether you accept it or not.Your mathematical model is in conflict with observed reality in the form of predicted discovery. Tiktaalik being the case in point.What is your explanation for the prediction and subsequent discovery of Tiktaalik if the combination of geology and evolution that led to it's prediction and subsequent discovery is wrong? And I'm telling you that reality doesn't care. The transitional you proclaim as too impossible to exist was predicted and discovered as a direct result of the theory you are seeking to compete against and overturn (i.e. common ancestry).You can mathematically model till the cows come home but if you can't even explain how some of the most famous evolutionary discoveries can be accounted for then why would anyone listen to you for anything other than entertainment?

No. No. No.The key fundamental point you are missing is that Tiktaalik was not just found and inserted into the evolutionary model.Tiktaalik was only discovered because evolutionary theory combined with geology predicted exactly where Tiktaalik should be found. No. For someone so mathematically clever you are bewilderingly foolish when it comes to understanding the nature of scientific prediction and discovery.Your mathematical model says that a transitional between fish and tetrapods is too improbable to exist.A fossil that was discovered as a direct result of the power of prediction, the gold standard of any scientific theory, says that you are wrong.How do you deal with that head to head, theory vs theory fact?You can't. So you simply deny. Or claim ignorance.

No. Again you either are ignorant or feign ignorance.A transitional was found in the exact geological space predicted by evolution.Around 390 million years ago, the only vertebrates were fish. By 360 million years ago, there were four-footed vertebrates on land.So a transitional was predicted to exist around 375 million years ago. Searching in the geology associated with the prediction resulted in the discovery.Voila. Explain that.What new species has your research led to the discovery of?

You keep referring to the fish evolve into mammal clique. But it’s nor a clique is it? It’s nearly every biologist, indeed scientist, on the planet that you are claiming superior knowledge to.You still have no alternative explanation for the origin of species. And it’s not like your model has led to the discovery of new species or indeed the discovery of anything of note at all.Let us know when the Nobel prize arrives... Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And you apparently are cleverer than all of them......?Reading some of the comments from biologists on other sites you have participated in suggests that the followng is why they aren’t quaking in their boots at the power of your intellect.Kleinman’s model of mutation is simple enough. Mutations are independent and have a particular frequency. He models the probability of at least one particular mutation happening in a population of constant size in some number of generations. He doesn’t consider the probability of more than one such mutation occurring, and he doesn’t consider changes in frequency (or absolute number) due to selection, though he thinks he does.Your model seems to be fine a few highly specific cases but misapplied to anything more complex.

The unique thing you are missing is the ability to predict and discover. What has creationism discovered recently? Or indeed ever? Well come back to us when your godly alternative narrative starts leading to the discovery of new species. If all you have are post hoc explanations of the new evidence discovered as a result of applying evolutionary science then you really have nothing at all.

Good grief. You are still here. Why are you wasting your time with a bunch of amateurs so obviously and clearly beneath you? Rather than focussing on persuading the Nobel prize committee of your genius? The man that overthrew evolutionary biology. The Newton/Darwin/Einstein/Pythagoras of our time.It’s almost as if you were a crank......

You can start by explaining the discovery of the example already cited. Tiktaalik

quote:

---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

---

Verification through prediction leading to discovery.When was the last time creationism resulted in the prediction and subsequent discovery of anything at all........?