What have we accomplished?

quote:

---

Don't do it for me, do it for your fellow fish-to-mammals aficionados.

---

You’re the one asking for it.So, let’s see your understanding. Have you worked out why this claim is wrong yet? ( Message 94 )

You claim you understand the Jukes-Cantor model. You are a liar. You can't even tell us what the initial condition for that model is and whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You just blow very stinky smoke. What initial condition will give equilibrium in 1 replication (generation for a nitwit like you)?

quote:

---

You claim you understand the Jukes-Cantor model. You are a liar. You can't even tell us what the initial condition for that model is and whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You just blow very stinky smoke

---

You certainly don’t let up on the projection. But you’re the one who claim to be the expert. I just claim that you don’t even know as much as I do.

quote:

---

What initial condition will give equilibrium in 1 replication (generation for a nitwit like you)?

---

Does this have anything to do with answering my question? If so you’ll have to explain the relevance. Because if you do understand your error rudely asking questions is a rather odd way to admit it.

I certainly know what the initial condition is for the Jukes-Cantor model and I know whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix and you don't. You are a very stupid liar.

quote:

---

I certainly know what the initial condition is for the Jukes-Cantor model and I know whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix and you don't

---

But you don’t know what’s wrong with your claim. And you don’t even know why you asked:

quote:

---

You are a very stupid liar.

---

Do you really think that resorting to abuse will cover up your failures?

There is nothing wrong with my claim and all you can do is lie about your claim that you understand the Jukes-Cantor model. You can't even tell us whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You are a very stupid liar.

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with my claim

---

Then you don’t understand Jukes-Cantor. What’s even worse is that I already explained the problem to you. And you still don’t understand it.

quote:

---

You are a very stupid liar.

---

Keep up with the pointless abuse. It just shows what a fraud you are.

You don't even know whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix. You are a very stupid and harmful liar.

Obviously all you can do is throw abuse.You certainly can’t handle the math.

Whatever abuse I throw on you is nothing compared to the harm you fish-to-mammals aficionados cause with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments. And you should tell the peer-reviewers, editors, publishers, and librarians at the National Library of Medicine where my papers can be found that I can't handle the math. And at least I know whether the initial condition of the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix, you big dummy.

Respect for women.
Respect for science.
Understanding that teaching sex education is not encouraging people to have sex.
Understanding birth control reduces abortion.
Health care is for everyone, not just people with good jobs.

quote:

---

Whatever abuse I throw on you is nothing compared to the harm you fish-to-mammals aficionados cause with drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments.

---

So you tell worse lies. Big deal.

quote:

---

And you should tell the peer-reviewers, editors, publishers, and librarians at the National Library of Medicine where my papers can be found that I can't handle the math.

---

That would only be possible if they were your papers. The evidence of this thread - and the others you are participating in here - indicates that you aren’t capable of having written them.But if you are capable of handling the math, if you aren’t just blowing smoke let’s discuss your corrections to Jukes-Cantor. And the problems you don’t see.So, describe the form of your model. Do you model the changes to each base as a Markov chain as Jukes Cantor does?

Now you are so stupid, you think the drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments don't occur by evolution. Oh really? What evidence you moron? You are the one that doesn't know whether the initial condition for the Jukes-Cantor model is a scalar, vector, or matrix. Earlier in our discussion, you said something that made me think you might get what the correction needs to be in the Jukes-Cantor model so that it would correctly predict the Kishony experiment. Go back and think about what you said, watch the YouTube videos that I gave links to that talk about how to do Markov chain computations, study the Wikipedia page on DNA evolution, in other words, do your own homework you silly jerk.

quote:

---

Now you are so stupid, you think the drug-resistant infections and failed cancer treatments don't occur by evolution.

---

No, I just don’t believe your accusation that evolutionary scientists are to blame. An accusation made without evidence.

quote:

---

Oh really? What evidence you moron?

---

The catalog of evasions and errors that make up your posting history.

quote:

---

Earlier in our discussion, you said something that made me think you might get what the correction needs to be in the Jukes-Cantor model so that it would correctly predict the Kishony experiment. Go back and think about what you said, watch the YouTube videos that I gave links to that talk about how to do Markov chain computations, study the Wikipedia page on DNA evolution, in other words, do your own homework you silly jerk.

---

And look another error and another evasion. You want me to tell you how you decided to fix Jukes-Cantor to make it do something it shouldn’t do. Well I don’t know what you decided to do, because I don’t read minds.

Oh, you mean those evolutionary scientists that can't correctly explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. The fish-to-mammals aficionados are having a difficult time explaining the simplest evolutionary experiments.