Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

That's me. So now that I'm exposed you might as well know that I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering as well as an MD degree. I'm also licensed in both fields. I have experience solving and have published solutions to complex mathematical problems.With respect to my work being taken seriously, some do, obviously, the peer-reviewers and editors who publish my papers take this work seriously. And so do the librarians at the National Library of Medicine which list my papers. But you have to understand that old ideas die hard. Especially by people so intensely indoctrinated into their belief system and those who don't abide by those beliefs can be kicked-out of the academic system. But the fact is, the people who run biology departments do not understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. My major field in Mechanical Engineering is Thermodynamics, yet Taq will argue with me about which law of thermodynamics that applies to DNA evolution. It is the second law of thermodynamics that applies to DNA evolution, not the first law.But be patient, the truth will win, it will take time but it will happen. All that is required for drug-resistant variants to appear in a population is for the population to become large enough. The Lenski experiment demonstrated that when he tested for drug-resistant variants in his founders' population and detected drug-resistant variants to many different antibiotics even though the ancestral populations were never exposed to the drugs. The reason this happened was the ancestral populations were grown in a much larger carrying capacity environment without starvation pressure. This allows the population sizes necessary for these variants to appear. Note, as the Lenski experiment progressed, most of the drug-resistant variants disappeared (selected out) because drug-resistant variants were not as fit as the "wild-type" drug-sensitive variants in the starvation selection pressure environment.That is also what is being demonstrated in the Kishony experiment. Taq correctly computed that it takes 3e9 replications (on average) for the drug-resistant variant to appear. Kishony's environment rather than killing all the drug-sensitive variants, select for those drug-resistant variants by the niches that have an increasing concentration of the drug. But each evolutionary step requires 3e9 replications. The significance of this to the theory of evolution is that each evolutionary transitional step takes at a minimum, billions of replications. This is not what is seen in the fossil record. For example, there are about 50 complete t Rex fossils and they were apex predators. Yet, each transitional mutation of a reptile to a bird would take billions of replications. You have far more t Rex fossils which didn't exist in the billion than so-called transitional fossils where each transitional step takes a billion replications. The fossil record does not show proof of the theory of evolution, it gives proof counter to that theory. The genetic record also contradicts the theory of evolution, that is if you understand how to do the mathematics of DNA evolution correctly.

My argument is that the physics and mathematics of evolution should be taught correctly in our educational system. I also don't have a problem with teaching Darwinian evolution which I believe is qualitatively correct. From Darwin's "Origin of Species" What Darwin is saying here is qualitatively correct, evolution consists of "competition" which he also calls "the struggle for existence" and "adaptation" which is DNA evolution. All that remains is to correctly quantify competition and DNA evolution and when you do that, you can understand the phenomenon including how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. And you will also understand why reptiles cannot evolve into birds and fish cannot evolve into mammals. That is what hard mathematical science can teach you.

I can tell you with mathematical and empirical certainty that birds cannot evolve from reptiles and mammals cannot evolve from fish. In fact, it is not possible for chimpanzees and humans to evolve from a common ancestor. There are far, far too many genetic differences and far, far too few replications to account for these differences. That is what science can tell you.

Yes, I can, and I've shown how to apply the mathematics to the Kishony and Lenski experiments as well as giving the correct explanation for why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. In addition, this math will predict the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments if they use more than a single selection pressure. And I did it by deriving the governing mathematics from first principles. If you think I've made an incorrect assumption, point it out. Here's the links to the DNA evolution papers again and show us where I made an incorrect assumption:
Just a moment...
and
Just a moment...
Even if you had the mathematical training and experience to understand these kinds of mathematical problems, you won't find an incorrect assumption. And you don't have the training or the experience. The difference between you and me is that I do have the training and experience to find these kinds of errors. That's why I can find the incorrect assumption on this page on the Markov Chain models that population geneticists use to determine relatedness.
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia
There is an incorrect assumption here and I know where it is and know how to correct it. You can't explain these models. You are thinking wrong. But if you think you are correct, point out my basic error and/or give us a real, measurable, and repeatable example of DNA evolution that doesn't obey the math that I've presented. You won't. I can't help it if biologists can't do the mathematics of evolution correctly. Perhaps if they took the mathematics that engineers are required to master instead of their dumbbell math courses, they could figure out this problem. You should take a course in introductory probability theory and even you might learn how DNA evolution works. Go watch the Kahn Academy lectures on probability theory and once you master introductory probability theory, see if you can put together a coherent argument rather than your vague thinking that I've made some kind of error.

The point you are missing is that it takes about a billion replications for each beneficial mutation on an evolutionary trajectory. It doesn't matter whether the selection condition is a toxin such as an antibiotic as used in the Kishony experiment, or starvation as used in the Lenski experiment, or any other selection pressure you can imagine. So, if you think it is thermal stress which makes reptiles grow feathers, that lineage must be able to do about a billion replications for each mutation in order to accumulate those mutations to do the genetic transformation. And that's not a billion replications for any reptile, it must be a billion replications of the variant that would benefit from the particular mutation. You have to have vast populations in order for DNA evolution to operate. And even if a reptile lineage can achieve these kinds of populations, you should have a huge number of transitional fossils demonstrating this transformation. You have more t Rex fossils that didn't exist in the billions than the transitional forms that would have had to exist for this type of genetic transformation to occur. And that's just for feathers, what about pneumatic bones, the differences in respiratory and circulatory systems, the excretory system differences, all the differences between reptiles and birds. You simply do not have anywhere near the size of populations necessary for these kinds of genetic transformations. That's why all examples of DNA evolution involve replicators that can achieve huge populations such as microbes or plants. Even so, force the replicator to evolve to multiple selection pressures simultaneously, you don't large enough population sizes to get the multiple lottery winners for these evolutionary processes. That's why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. That's a two-way street. The difference is that I know where the incorrect assumptions are and you don't. What makes you think that DNA evolution works differently with selection and drift? In fact, the Markov models of DNA evolution work the same for both:
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia Now, they do make an incorrect assumption in the development of these models which gives a highly inaccurate relative rate of different change, but you don't know where that error is and I do. Here are the links to the papers on DNA evolution again. Show us where I misunderstand the application in at least one important way.
Just a moment...
and
Just a moment...
So point out my misunderstanding. You won't because it is you who don't understand.The biggest blunder that biologists make in their understanding of evolution is the effect of the multiplication rule of probabilities. There are other errors but that's the big one.

It doesn't matter whether mutations are beneficial, neutral, or detrimental, DNA evolution works the same for all situations. DNA evolution is simply the mathematics of the evolutionary trajectory. The only difference is that evolutionary trajectories involving beneficial mutations are more likely to occur because the improvement in fitness allows those variants to replicate more which means there is a higher probability of that trajectory being achieved. Let's assume you are correct. Are you now going to claim that flight muscles, the differences in circulatory, respiratory, excretory, endocrine, metabolism, anatomy,... all evolved in dinosaurs (reptiles) before they became birds? It is you who grossly underestimate the number of transitionals quite considerably. Each transitional state requires another mutation and it takes a billion replications for that mutation to occur. And the reason that is because of the multiplication rule of probabilities whether the mutation is neutral, detrimental, or beneficial. The error in the Markov model of DNA evolution is the subject of my next paper and I already know how correct that error and apply Markov chain mathematics to the Kishony (and every other example of DNA evolution). Now I've published plenty of math already and you keep saying I'm misunderstanding something. Here's the links to the papers and explain to us where my error is.
Just a moment...
and
Just a moment...
So point out my misunderstanding. You won't because it is you who don't understand. DNA evolution works the same whether genetic changes are occurring by drift or when selection is acting. The reason for this is that mutations whether beneficial, neutral, or detrimental are random events. The math is the same for all mutations, the joint probability of these mutations occurring is computed using the multiplication rule.And don't be stupid. The models I've presented work just fine for all examples of DNA evolution. That's why you haven't been able to point out any errors in the models. Both models apply. The first model applies to evolution to a single selection pressure and the second model applies to evolution to multiple simultaneous selection pressures. So, use the first model which only requires a billion replication for each mutation (beneficial or otherwise). If you want to assume there are no selective differences between humans and chimps and that all DNA transformation is due to drift, show us how to do the accounting for all the genetic differences between humans and chimps and why the human to human and chimp to chimp differences are so small. Because if it is all about drift, then the human to human differences and chimp to chimp differences should be the same as the human to chimp differences. It's very simple. Mutations are random events and you compute the joint probability of two mutations occurring using the multiplication rule. And it doesn't matter whether the mutations are beneficial, neutral, or beneficial. You should have learned this in your introductory probability theory class.

What I mean is that mutations cause diversity in a population. What selection does is reduce diversity by lowering the number and relative frequency of the less fit variants. You are not going to make a claim but then you make a claim. We have plenty of information about the differences between reptiles and birds. They have different respiratory systems, different circulatory systems,... Do you know that birds have a loop of Henle and reptiles don't? Let's assume you have 10 million years to account for the drift of humans and chimps from the common ancestor. Tell us why humans are genetically similar, chimps are genetically similar, and yet there are humans and chimps differ by 10s of millions of mutations. Aren't humans and chimps diverging from their common human and chimp ancestors? And what you need to learn is that the carrying capacity of the environment allows for vast populations of microbes but nowhere near the same size population of reptiles and other complex replicators. The point is that each mutation, whether beneficial, neutral, or detrimental gives rise to a different evolutionary trajectory. What that means if you try to compare the genomes of two lineages, the accumulation of any particular mutations on a lineage will take a billion replications. So, let's say that you compare the genes of humans and chimps and you have only a single base difference in each of 20,000 genes between humans and chimps. 10 million years ago those differences should not have existed. When the two lineages diverge, over 10 million years, those particular mutations must be accumulated whether beneficial, neutral or detrimental. And the accumulations of each of those mutations will require a billion replications of that variant. Not at all. What it means is that you don't understand how to use the at least one rule in probability theory and have no idea of how to do a Markov Chain computation. When you learn how to do the math correctly, you will get totally consistent results and be able to explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments and other examples of evolution. You claim to understand probability theory and claim that I have done something wrong in the math. Show us!
Just a moment...
and
Just a moment...
There's the math, show us where there is a wrong assumption or math error. You won't because you don't understand introductory probability theory. So you think that the correct mathematics of DNA evolution doesn't apply here? What magic do you think applies to evolution to make reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals? You can't even explain the simplest examples of evolution such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments and why combination therapy works for the treatment of hiv. Somebody has already gotten to you and fooled you big time. It is relevant because that is how DNA evolution works. That's why it takes a billion replications for each evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. The math is really not very difficult, you should learn it so that you don't get fooled so often. Sure it accounts for drift. Here's how it works. Let's say for example, in the Kishony experiment that he uses ciprofloxacin as the selection pressure. In the drug-free region, he gets a colony of 3e9. In that population is a variant that has a beneficial mutation for that drug and that variant is able to grow in the next higher drug-concentration region. But also in that population is a variant that has a beneficial mutation for trimethoprim. In that environment, that mutation is neutral. But if that variant with the trimethoprim mutation can replicate 3e9 times, one of its descendants will get a second mutation for increased fitness to trimethoprim. One of those variants will even have a beneficial mutation for ciprofloxacin. That is one of the many points on this subject that you don't understand. The reason you don't try is that you don't know how to do the math. You can't even do the math for the Kishony and Lenski experiments. That's why you can't show if I've made any errors in my assumptions or math. You make lots of claims but can't do the math. You should go back and study introductory probability theory and learn how to do the mathematics of stochastic processes such as DNA evolution. Just post a link to a paper that explains how the Kishony and Lenski experiments work (other than my papers). You would think that biologists have already explained these experiments but these papers don't exist. And learn how to do the mathematics of Markov Chain processes because that another way of understanding how DNA evolution works.

It's not that difficult. My papers were peer-reviewed and published by people expert in probability theory. And I'm not being vague at all, here's how you apply the multiplication rule to DNA evolution.
Just a moment...
If you think I've done the math incorrectly, feel free to point out any error. You won't.

I'm only correcting the incompetent job that biologists have performed in describing the physics and mathematics of evolution. And what I think naive school children should be taught is the correct physics and mathematics of evolution so they would have some understanding of how drug-resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. You certainly haven't given us the correct mathematics which describes the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Really? That's a mystery to me. I challenge Felsenstein to do the mathematics of the Lenski experiment but he refused:
Sandwalk: Contingency, selection, and the long-term evolution experiment Felsenstein neglects to mention that his model of DNA evolution also doesn't take into account natural selection. What he doesn't get is that the mathematics of the evolutionary trajectory is not dependent on natural selection. It only depends on the ability of a particular variant to replicate. On top of that, he did the Markov Chain mathematics for his model incorrectly based on an incorrect assumption. But since Felsenstein couldn't do the mathematics of the Lenski experiment, I took up the gauntlet and did the math myself. Here's how the mathematics of that experiment works:
Just a moment...I'll correct Felsenstein's math in my next paper. Anything else you think I'm running from?

What my model explains is the mathematic of the evolutionary trajectory. It explains how many replications are necessary for a particular DNA evolutionary process for a given mutation rate. It is simply a different approach to the math than the Markov chain models such as the Jukes-Cantor, Kimura, or Felsenstein models. The biggest difference is that I've done the math correctly and like I said in another thread that I've looked at these Markov chain models and I know where they make their error in these Markov Chain models. I will submit for publication that paper toward the end of summer. The computer calculation time for the different cases is taking quite a bit of time. What this model shows is that for every transitional step (beneficial mutation) it takes about a billion replications. You haven't looked at the Kishony (or the Lenski) experiment yet, have you. When you understand both of those experiments, you will understand how DNA evolution operates in a non-competitive environment (the Kishony experiment) and a competitive environment (the Lenski experiment). So, if you think Tiktaalik is some transitional form, you better produce vast numbers of fossils because there are about 50 complete t Rex specimens and it is highly unlikely there were billions of t Rex (large apex predator and all).

I'm not lying about this. You can find phylogenic trees all over the place drawn by biologists that claim this very thing. Here's one of a myriad of hits that I found with a simple search. Of course, you are now going to explain how this evolutionary process works. And please show your math.

Why do I owe you a mathematical explanation for something like this? Do you think that long ago, somewhere in the Shire that one of the hobbits had a fusion of two chromosomes? Did that fusion occur in a male or female hobbit? And how did all future hobbits end up with this fusion chromosome?

What'sa matta? I'm the only one dishing out mathematics here. You just want me to dish out more? My mistake thinking that dwise people out there could actually do some of their own math. It appears you are not sowise. Oh no dsimple1, let's do the math for your problem. You claim that Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes. Fusions are mutations, right? Now, there are several questions you can ask about this mutation, Is this mutation beneficial, neutral, or detrimental? So, are fusions beneficial? Let's see what is written about these kinds of mutations:
Fusion gene - Wikipedia Well that doesn't sound like beneficial. Let's try chromosome abnormality and see if we get any good news there about fusion mutations.
Chromosome abnormality - Wikipedia
There's no good news there, all they do is list a bunch of genetic diseases. Let's try fertility and see what we get:
Genetics of infertility - Wikipedia That doesn't look beneficial! Is there any evidence that a fusion mutation is beneficial anywhere? Perhaps dsimple1 would present that evidence.So, in order to do the mathematics of fixation, we need to know if this fusion mutation is beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. And all the evidence appears that fusion mutations are detrimental so if fixation is to occur, it is going to be by drift. But what about an improvement in fitness? What must this fusion mutation variant do to get an offspring with a beneficial mutation? Nothing to it! All that fusion mutation variant must do is replicate 3e9 times and you will get an offspring with a beneficial mutation. And the fusion mutation variant doesn't even have to fix in the population. The halfling with the fusion mutation can live happily with its human and chimpanzee relatives.

That's not at all what I'm saying. Every mutation and variant represents a transition. But a transition to what? What the Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate how these transitions work and how many replications are necessary to accumulate a specific set of mutations to increase fitness in a particular environment. Certainly, other mutations are occurring in their populations and those variants on different evolutionary trajectories. Those variants on those trajectories are not improving fitness to the given environment, that is they are drifting. So Tiktaalik is a transitional form but transitioning to what? Most likely, it is transitioning to another Tiktaalik but it might be transitioning to a mutant variant of a Tikaalik. But if you think it is transitioning to another species, for a mutation rate of e-9, it's going to take 3e9 replications of each variant on that evolutionary trajectory for each evolutionary step to that different species. It is no different than the way the Kishony and Lenski populations accumulate their particular mutations. I'm telling you how many replications are required for each transitional (mutational) step on that evolutionary trajectory. And this math correlates with the empirical evidence and is derived based on first principles. The math is not that difficult. Start with the definition of mutation rate and then do the probability calculation of at least one occurrence of a particular mutation. That's exactly how DNA evolution works and that's why it correctly predicts the behavior of the Kishony and Lenski experiments. I'm telling you with mathematical precision how likely a transitional step is to occur. Do you understand why it takes a billion replications for each transitional step in the Kishony experiment? Do you think that in a couple of replications Tiktaalik is going to transition into a tetrapod? Tell us how many replications of Tiktaalik will be needed to transform it into a tetrapod. Make sure you show your math. Prove to us you are not one of those who say, "given enough time, anything can happen".

So you agree, fish evolve into mammals. And it only takes 4 evolutionary transitions. Did recombination do it?