Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Well, I don't think you are qualified to hand out job assignments. I understand your scheme though, you're planning to steal our solution and claim the Nobel Prize for yourself, well I'm onto you. You continue to overlook your error. I am ignorant of MANY THINGS and I take great pride in the subtlety of my vulgarity. I'm pretty sure you would not recognize scientific acumen, but I'm not the one trying desperately, to get someone, anyone, to worship his brilliance. Hold on Mathboy, your pseudoscientific training is showing. I have shared no beliefs with you here, so your attempts at character assassination, clearly demonstrate the weakness of your knowledge.The thing I've noticed over the years with guys like you, is that universally you alienate the only people on the planet that could appreciate your work and apply it in their own work, if it is valid. I suspect their will be few citations of your work until you correct the error in you hypothesis.I know you like to pretend you are a scientist, but you sure don't sound like one.

If I were to assign this job to someone, it certainly wouldn't be you. And Edward Tatum has already won the Nobel Prize for this in 1958. He talked about this in his 1958 Nobel Laureate Lecture. The only thing I've done is put mathematics to his idea. And any student that has taken high school level probability theory can do this math. I'm really very surprised that none in your clique has already done this. Is that so? I found a really big error in the Jukes-Cantor/Kimura/Felsenstein Markov Chain DNA evolution models. The error is so obvious. Try using their models to simulate the Kishony experiment. I have and you don't get the correct solution. See if you can find their error and correct their math. You won't. Your vulgarity is anything but subtle. If you have a subtlety, it is in your scientific acumen. I don't think you have that subtlety but maybe you can prove me wrong. It doesn't take brilliance to reveal your blunders, all it takes is the understanding of high school level math. Like I say, the only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance and vulgarity. To boot, you want me to do your job. I suppose the error in my hypothesis is my claim that fish don't evolve into mammals and reptiles don't evolve into birds. The correct hypothesis is that evolution takes place in tiny steps and those tiny steps add up to big steps. Well, that hypothesis is half right. Evolution does occur in tiny steps but these steps don't add up because DNA evolution is a stochastic process. These steps are linked to each other by the multiplication rule of probabilities because they are joint random events, not the addition rule of probabilities. And I've shown you how to do the math correctly. Take it or leave it, it's up to you. But if you want to understand DNA evolution correctly, you had better take it. And so should anyone involved in treating infectious diseases and using targeted therapies for treating cancers if you want to play that game of chance. I don't know what you think a scientist should sound like. Perhaps you should try talking with and listening to people outside your mutual admiration society.

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.

And did Edward Tatum agree with your conclusions about created kinds?

What an incredible prediction. You found the fossil of a fish in river sediments. I've never said that it is too improbable find a fossil of fish. But perhaps you will answer this question:
If I understand you correctly, you contend that Tiktaalik is a transitional form of some kind of aquatic replicator without limbs (I guess, something like an eel) and ground-dwelling tetrapods. Could you explain to all of us what coding and regulatory genes are required for the formation of limbs and what is the selection pressure that would select for the formation of those appendages? If the best prediction you have to offer is that you found the fossil of a fish in river sediments, I'm not impressed. Maybe the members of your clique see something profound with that kind of prediction, I'm not impressed. So, tell us what coding and regulatory genes are needed to make a non-limbed replicator produce limbs, and the selection pressure(s) needed to select for this type of evolutionary transformation.

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?

Interesting, I didn't know I had a clique. I work with other scientists in my field and we like to party together too. Mexican food and Negra Modelo beer. You would be very surprised by their achievements, but you wouldn't understand them. Well of course I won't, that's your job. I don't give a shit (GAS) about the Kishony experiment.And YOU continue to overlook YOUR error. You are another poster child for the Dunning—Kruger effect, well done! Damn it, I was shooting for subtle vulgarity! In science we tend not to try and prove things, but rather try to make tentative conclusions based on the evidence. OK go for it, we're waiting. And while you are at it, you might quote my specific blunders, please. Well, unlike you, I recognize that ignorance is a condition that can be modified, rather than a character flaw.I guess you missed it earlier when I said that I don't recognize you as having any authority to make job assignments, especially when it is glaringly obvious that you have a massive error in your hypothesis. Are you daft? Why would you think that happens? Well, I'm not involved in treating infectious diseases or cancer. Well, I'm going to pass on joining your self-admiration society.

Why should that surprise me? There are lots of very talented people in the world. Some of them have been my teachers and co-workers. Whatever Unless that evidence is the Kishony experiment. Maybe the Lenski experiment more fits your taste? Either experiment should since they both use e coli. I already have, pay attention. It's in your hypothesis. Microevolutionary changes don't add up to make a macroevolutionary change, they are linked by the multiplication rule because microevolutionary changes are joint random events. Did anyone ever tell you are boring?Edited by Kleinman, : Typo error

I never said I was unaware of a couple microbiology experiments, but I am not a microbiologist. Your hypothesis fails to model biology beyond your very narrow focus (basically 2 experiments). What hypothesis? I have not proposed an hypothesis. Your hypothesis is incorrect. After all this time you still don't get any of the basic concepts of evolution. Sad. Nope. How many times have people told you you're wrong?

That's what happens when you are surrounded by your mutual admiration society. And you are boring.

And we have a new champion!

yawn

Yay! Maybe the little kiddie learned a new word?

quote:

---

Microevolutionary changes don't add up to make a macroevolutionary change, they are linked by the multiplication rule because microevolutionary changes are joint random events.

---

I’ll note that Kleinman made a similar argument earlier. Kleinman’s idea that I didn’t understand basic probability theory was another of his blunders - failing to recognise the correct answer.Yet, when I proved that I did understand basic probability theory rather than going on to elaborate he failed to reply.As written, however Kleinman’s claim is vague - as usual for him - although the argument appears to be far from the slam dunk he needs to back up his claim of a blunder.

Speaking of which, I see that you're a longtime member of the Evolution Fairy Tale forum. Me too!