What have we accomplished?

More evasion. You can’t describe your model because you don’t have one or know how to build one.

PaulK really has to expand his reading list beyond fossil tea-leaf reading journals and Mad magazine.
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
And coming soon to you in a real scientific journal near you, "The Kishony Experiment, a Markov Chain Process".

I’ve read those papers. I’m not sure you have. You certainly didn’t read those web pages about the Jukes-Cantor model. Let alone any more authoritative source. Nobody writing a scientific paper relating to that model could be as ignorant of it as you were,Which is how I know you aren’t writing a paper and don’t have a model.

But you do know that fish evolve into mammals and you are descended from bananas. Knowledge just gushes out of you.

If you had a model you could talk about it. You could show that I was wrong. But you don’t because I’m right.(And you really think that a 2 base Jukes-Cantor would be worth worth doing and a 3 base version isn’t? Message 1891. Oh dear, oh dear.)

The 3 base version of the non-stationary Jukes-Cantor model and a mutation rate of E-9 will take over 1e26 replications (not generations, you dodo) for each successful evolutionary step (and that is not equilibrium). For a mutation rate of e-5 (about that of hiv), it will take about 1e15 replications for each evolutionary step. That's why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. You see, when you write the correct transition matrix for DNA evolution, you get the same results as what you get from this model:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

what's the computation for abiogenesis? in terms of probability, that matter sprang from nothing or proteins from nothing, inanimate matter to organic matter?what's the probability of abiogenesis occuring and creating reality?

Alan Kleinman | California State University USA | Bacteriology 2019 | Pulsus ConferenceKleinman's the real deal. funny the guys with the credentials are skewing creationist these days.

quote:

---

The 3 base version of the non-stationary Jukes-Cantor model and a mutation rate of E-9 will take over 1e26 replications (not generations, you dodo) for each successful evolutionary step (and that is not equilibrium).

---

Oh, you mean a model which requires three bases to change? In sequence? Well that isn’t very sensible. Not that the two base model would be worth doing either. Of course models of selection aren’t Jukes-Cantor or corrections of Jukes-Cantor - even if you only track one base. I’m sorry for thinking that you might at least have been considering the real problems of modelling the Kishony experiment with a Markov chain.But there is a very sensible reason why a model that uses selection might want to track three bases and not two.But you don’t know it because you don’t have a model and aren’t even trying to build one.

Those computations were done years ago. The mathematics of abiogenesis is even more irrational than the mathematics of the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis and the TOE are the dumb and dumber of the field of biology. And the fish-to-mammals aficionados think that selection makes the mathematics more rational for the TOE. The only problem is that they don't do the math.

There's no point in discussing my model when the mathematically incompetent PaulK doesn't understand the Jukes-Cantor model and what is simulates physically. Since PaulK can't even tell us what the intial condition is for the Jukes-Cantor model and whether it is a scalar, vector, or matrix, (and none of the fish-to-mammals aficionados on this forum can do it as well), I guess I'll have to do it. Put your bibs on fish-to-mammals aficionados as I spoon feed you some mathematics. And remember, don't play with your food, all you do is make a mess that someone else has to clean up. So back to the Wikipedia page on Markov Chain DNA evolution models:
DNA evolution as a continuous-time Markov chain
Then go a little further down the page and find the paragraph titled "Deriving the dynamics of substitution" and you will find the vector equation:
E = {A,G,C,T}
where A, G, C, and T are the frequencies of the particular bases at the particular site being considered. Thus, when i=0 that is time=0, the initial condition, E0 = {A0,G0,C0,T0}. The initial condition is a vector of the frequencies of the different possible bases at the given site. Understand rubberband? Now, you of little understanding, how do you compute the state of the system when i=1, that is, how do you compute E1? Let's see if your dark mind can shed a little light on this subject.

Nobody is suggesting that proteins "sprang" from nothing. They developed from something that was kinda like proteins but not quite proteins. The probability of each step in the many steps is pretty high. It's not that easy to distinguish between inanimate matter and organic matter as it is. Are viruses alive?

You haven't taken courses in organic and biochemistry, have you? You should listen to James Tour's discussion of this subject. Here's one of his presentations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU7Lww-sBPg
And your last sentence in that quote is quite an understatement. Viruses are replicators but need a host to do that. Do you know what the simplest self-replicating organism is and how many genes in that organism?

It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.bravo, kleinman.i've been exploring two belief-centric films, the ninth configuration and the exorcist, both creations of the great Catholic Mind of William P Blatty.the evolutionists expect us to accept their story lock stock and barrel, without having the numbers to back it up.i do know one thing. i was created. by a loving god. named Jesus Christ. and his name is holy, yeshua.and by the way, the evolutionists can't figure out why humanity has love, why we sacrifice ourselves for others, it speaks against the survival of the fittest.these are just myths and stories they tell themselves so they can ignore the reality staring them in the face:god became man incarnate of the virgin mary
he suffered under pontius pilate died and was buried in accordance with the scriptures
he rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of god, from where he will judge the living and the dead
his kingdom will have no end.

I think a central part of this debate is people trying to justify their atheism. Because if there is no god, there is no accountability. But if we were created, we have accountability to our Creator. Our hope is that our Creator is perfect in His justise and perfect in His mercy. The atheist does what is right in their own mind no matter how twisted their mind is.