Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Somebody has to explain the mathematics of evolution correctly, the fish-to-mammals aficionados certainly haven't done it. Only those academic institutions operated by people familiar with introductory probability theory. I don't expect the institutions operated by the fish-to-mammals aficionados will accept these mathematical and empirical facts of life. They disrupt their delusions. Wrong headline (and why should we be surprised?). The headline will read "The Mathematics of Evolution Correctly Explained". That headline will not be seen in any fish-to-mammals aficionado journals or Mad magazine. I'm showing you how common descent works. Each evolutionary step on an evolutionary trajectory to improved fitness in common descent takes a billion replications. And I understand how difficult it is for you fish-to-mammals aficionados to grasp this math so I'll keep it as simple as possible. It is because of mutation rates of e-9 and if you throw in the multiplication rule, you have the mathematics of common descent. See how easy it is to see when you are standing on the shoulders of giant? Your problem is you are standing on the shoulders of the delusional.

Neither have you. When the students don't learn it's often the teacher's fault.

If the mathematical model correlates with all real, measurable, and repeatable empirical examples of evolution, then it does describe reality. All you need to disprove the model that I've presented is to present a single real, measurable, and repeatable empirical example of evolution that contradicts this model. You won't present that example. In fact, you won't even give us the correct mathematical explanation of the Kishony or Lenski evolutionary experiments. None of you fish-to-mammals aficionados have. Can't any of you fish-to-mammals do the mathematics of the simplest examples of evolution? I guess they didn't teach you this mathematics in your dumbbell math courses.

And you know this because of all zero papers you have published on this subject and your complete ignorance of introductory probability theory? Only you fish-to-mammals aficionados would lack any skepticism when someone says you are related to a banana. Your brain must have frozen in your frozen wasteland. Where are all the fish-to-mammals aficionados with any skill in mathematics? It appears that mathematics does fit with your delusions.

Correction: Your mathematics does not fit the reality of the world around us. -- your Message 1518-- my Message 1520You never answered my question.Where did these birds, reptiles, mammals and fish come from if they didn't evolve from other forms?How did life on this planet go from single eukaryotes to bananas to fish to monkeys to man?If today's birds didn't evolve from reptiles, from the avian class of the dinosaur clade Theropoda specifically, then where did they come from? How did they get here?

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.

Really? Do you still think that the number of replications needed for each step in the Kishony and Lenski experiments is somewhere between 1 and indeterminant and not a billion? At least Taq got that one right. That's not my job. My job is to explain the physics and mathematics of evolution to the mathematically incompetent fish-to-mammals aficionados. That's more than enough of a job. "1 to indeterminant", what a ding-a-ling.

Your link didn't work, you left a blank space before the link address. I corrected that in the above link.And you can start with the National Library of Medicine, but I suppose you don't think that is an academic institution.And from your link: You fish-to-mammals aficionados can't even do that math correctly. You cherry-pick the genes. With that type of approach in DNA phylogenetics, you can show that your parents were bananas. You fish-to-mammals aficionados have no perspective on wild extrapolations. You can't even explain common descent in the Kishony and Lenski experiments.

quote:

---

I noticed that Dr Adequate was on that forum 13 years ago. And was somehow banned.

---

That may have been in the great purge that happened many years ago.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Yep. We don't have to wait for the 1 billionth replication before we see a mutation. Your e9 generations per SNP is not a constant of biology no matter what your errant math is telling you. You're afraid! You're afraid, aren't you!You're afraid the rest of the crack pot is going to come crashing out?Is this a religious thing? An alien panspermia cosmic zoo thing?Are you afraid we will laugh at your creation story? We're already laughing at your mutation mathematics so things can't really get much worse for you.What are you afraid of, Kleinman?

My goodness, you fish-to-mammals aficionados are so slow on this math. Do you really think that any mutation gives improved fitness? The reason why it takes a billion replications when the mutation rate is e-9 for each beneficial mutation is that's the number of replications necessary for the beneficial mutation to happen at least once on average. We should get a high school student to tutor you. Don't be silly. I have enough work on my hands teaching the mathematically incompetent the mathematics of DNA evolution.

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?

I remember Dr Adequate, he was muddling around trying to do some mathematics of fixation. That forum is gone and I'm still here trying to teach the fish-to-mammal aficionados about the multiplication rule of probabilities and DNA evolution.

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.

Run away as fast as you can, Mr. Billion Generations per Mutation.So afraid to answer a simple question?Come on, Kleinman. Your math proves without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is impossible. So what takes its place? Where did this all come from?You certainly have way more than enough time to write a few short paragraphs on what replaces evolution now that your billion-generations-per-mutation-Markov-Chain math has so thoroughly destroyed the great cornerstone of modern biology and genetics.Don't be afraid, Kleinman. The world awaits your great insight.