Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

It leaves you utterly unable to explain the vast plethora of evidence that evolution occurred. It leaves you in direct contradiction of the fossil record, geology and genetic evidence of common descent including (as you are into mathematical modelling) molecular and computational phylogenetics.If you want to supercede all of that you are going to need something more than dismissing it all as the fish turn into mammals clique.

But your blinkered focus on drug resistance stops you from looking at how evolution has actually occurred. Species exist. That is a fact. According to your theory there is no common descent so each species must have originated independently.How does that work?Do you accept geology? And astronomy? Do you accept that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?Your relentless focus on the minutiae of drug resistance doesn’t provide any context or answers to the big scientific questions. It’s a special case extrapolation gone mad.

Still here? Still declaring everyone here too stupid to appreciate your standing on the shoulders of giant scientific breakthrough.And now proclaiming that various academic institutions accept your claim that you have falsified common descent. I mean do they know that’s what they have signed up to?We await the Evolution Falsified headlines with bated breath. I’m sure the National Library of Medicine will be the first to sign up to that particular conclusion......Or maybe your much (self) vaunted papers don’t falsify common descent in the way you think they do. Maybe you should explicitly point out that particular extrapolated conclusion to the National Library of Medicine and let us know how they react. I’d love to know.

I see. So which academic institutions do accept your conclusions regarding common descent? Common descentYou wriggle and writhe pretending that your wild extrapolations have some sort of academic credence but they clearly do not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That will do. So now show me where the National Library of medicine accepts your conclusions regarding common descent as opposed to being fish-to-mammals aficionados.I’m pretty sure the National Library of Medicine accepts evolution of species from common ancestry despite your stats. But feel free to show me where they declare otherwise.The only academic institution you cite as supporting your ideas doesn’t actually accept your ridiculous extrapolations at all does it?

The evolution you have mathematically modelled is a blinkered small minded form of evolution that tells us nothing about the origin of species. It’s of pactical interest to medics and immunologists but of little worth beyond that.It’s hardly a replacement for the grand overarching underpinning of all biology that started with Darwin and which has extended to phylogenetics today.You say you have successfully provided thr mathematics to evolution. But if it’s not any sort of evolution that matters outside the narrow confines of one or two specific special case experiments, if it has no bearing on the origin lf species, then you aren’t the Newton you think you are.

So you want to replace evolution as the mechanism by which species originate with....what?The evolution you have modelled can account for nothing more than some minor changes relating to drug resistance and suchlike. It barely qualifies as evolution as most people understand it.Do we even need to go as far as species origin - Is your model even consistent with recently evolved Human traits? What does your model say about the probability of adaptations for living in high altitudes? The probability of developing resistance to contagious diseases (such as malaria)? Fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence or alcohol tolerance?These are all known recent developments. According to your model what is the probability of these having evolved?

So these things (minus the malaria resistance) have evolved in the last 10,000 years or so in a relatively small population. But with population growth nearly all the people that have ever existed did so well after the mesolithic era.What is the probability, according to your model, of this combination of traits evolving when they did? (I.e when only a few billion people had ever existed)

According to your own link only 0.4% of the humans that have ever lived had existed by the point that the traits in question evolved. And we are talking about a geographically separate subset of that population.I am asking you what the probability of those traits in that combination evolving in that population is according to your model.I know you don't accept common descent. We have established that. So I am not sure why you are talking about chimpanzees. I am trying to establish whether your probability model is even consistent with the forms of evolution you presumably do accept. Namely the traits associated with Europeans that evolved in the mesolithic.Forget chimpanzees for a moment and try to focus...

So - Are you going to tell us the probability of these traits occurring in that population or not?What are you afraid of?

I need you to tell me the probability of fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence and alcohol tolerance all having evolved during the mesolithic (i.e when the total number of humans that had ever lived was about 400 million according to your link).You do it. It’s your calculation.You were desperate to show how bewilderingly impossible evolution was earlier when talking about chimpanzees and whatnot. Let’s see what your calculations say about the likelihood of relatively recent human traits.Why are you stalling?

You seem to have missed it so let’s try again.I need you to tell me the probability of fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence and alcohol tolerance all having evolved during the mesolithic (i.e when the total number of humans that had ever lived was about 400 million according to your link).
You do it. It’s your calculation.You were desperate to show how bewilderingly impossible evolution was earlier when talking about chimpanzees and whatnot. Let’s see what your calculations say about the likelihood of relatively recent human traits.Why are you stalling?