Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do you see what I mean? Generations aren't the random trial for the beneficial mutation, it's replications. Go to the back of the class.

So you mean someone else by the name of Larni posted that quote?

So tell us, big thinker, what were the mechanisms of evolution that Darwin wrote about in his book "On the Origin of Species"? I doubt you understand what Darwin wrote about. But feel free to post a quote from his book which you think encompasses what he was trying to say. If you have trouble doing that, I can help you. And you can't do DNA phylogenetics based on fossil tea-leaf reading and you can't do DNA phylogenetics by cherry-picking a portion of the genome. And when are you going to present a real, measurable, and repeatable example of evolution that doesn't follow the mathematics I've presented? You won't. And Newton had to invent calculus to do the mathematics for his physical model. Probability theory was already a well developed mathematical discipline that I simply applied to DNA evolution. You should study the subject if you want to understand evolution.

No silly. That billion-replications-per-beneficial mutation explains how evolution works. And if you really want to know where it all came from, ask your fossil tea-leaf reader. Just don't expect them to tell you the correct explanation of how evolution works.

You should read and quote the entire sentence and then you might learn something. And the reason you are so stupid is that you are lazy, you don't read the book, and you don't do your homework. So don't blame me for your failure to understand the physics and mathematics of evolution. Blame yourself. And it always amuses me when atheists quote their favorite and only verse they know from the Bible.

What the Kishony and Lenski experiments demonstrate is how DNA evolution by common descent works. And each evolutionary step takes a billion replications. You fish-to-man aficionados need to learn the difference between generations and replications. The reason this distinction is so important is that if you want to understand a stochastic process, the first thing you need to recognize is what the random trial is for that stochastic process. For example, if you are considering a card drawing problem, the random trial is not the deck of cards, the random trial is the draw of the card. Populations can have all different kinds of growth each generation. The number of replications each generation can be constant, exponentially growing, growing at a linear rate, declining... But the replication will always be the random trial for the beneficial mutation. And I would say having a correct understanding of evolution is good news. It gives you the correct framework for developing strategies to prevent drug-resistant infections and more durable cancer treatments.

I think you don't have any idea what Darwin was talking about. Here's what Darwin said from his work on the origin of species: Darwin is talking about two distinct physical processes, competition, and adaptation. You probably don't even know that competition slows adaptation. What understanding of evolution do you have? These are real, measurable, and repeatable examples of Darwinian evolution, the Lenski experiment is an example of adaptation in a highly competitive environment and the Kishony experiment is an example of adaptation in a minimally competitive environment. Whatever your understanding of evolution is based on something from your imagination, not on real examples of evolution. Our bodies will produce more red blood cells if we live in lower oxygen concentration environments. And malaria resistance such as sickle cell trait, thalassemia, etc are examples of single point mutations and humans have had more than enough replications for those events to occur. Remember, with a billion replications and a mutation rate of e-9, you will have on average every possible base substitution in some member of that population. And there have been about 100 billion people who have lived. The problem that you don't seem to get is getting malaria resistance, fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence, alcohol tolerance... all into one lineage. The accumulation of those mutations requires a billion replications of each variant at each evolutionary step. With 100 billion replications to work with, the best you can come up with is 100 adaptive mutations in some lineage. It is like it is for the Kishony experiment. In his initial colony of a billion members, he is going to have a variant with a ciprofloxacin beneficial mutation and a trimethoprim beneficial mutation (and likely to many other antibiotics). The particular antibiotic used reveals which of these mutations are beneficial. The problem for his bacteria when two drugs are used requires exponentially more replication for the two beneficial mutations to occur on a single individual.
Here's how you do the math for this evolutionary process:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance

Sometimes that's where the blame falls. In your poorly educated world, everyone gets a social promotion. You will never understand stochastic processes (such as DNA evolution) until you understand introductory probability theory, you are either too lazy or too stupid to master that mathematics and most likely both. Oh my, a Bible scholar as well as an expert in the mathematics of evolution in our midst. We definitely know where the seed fell on the rocky ground in your household.

Aren't you the arrogant one. Not all my students have difficulty with the mathematics of evolution. It's only the fish-to-mammals aficionados that are having a problem with this math. The problem is that this mathematics which describes the empirical evidence doesn't fit with your delusions. It is you and your fellow fish-to-mammals aficionados that won't accept these mathematical and empirical facts of life. So you blame the teacher for your inability to learn mathematics? It is a poor student that blames the teacher when they can't pass an examination. So you blame me because you can't learn introductory probability theory. You haven't matured much since your high school days and you haven't learned much either. Why don't you watch the Kahn Academy lectures on probability theory? They are on YouTube, they are aimed at high school students. Then, you might be able to carry on an intelligent debate on the mathematics of evolution. That's your cue to start up your excuse machine. I've taught engineering at the university level, both undergraduate and graduate levels courses and always got high student evaluations. It's really not hard, just present the subject in a straight-forward logical manner and as long as the student has the prerequisite course work, my lectures were always easy to understand. Your problem is that you don't have the prerequisite course work. I've told you where you can watch the lectures and learn introductory probability theory, they are easy to understand. Once you do that, it will be easy to teach you the mathematics of evolution. Otherwise, just continue to be stupid and lazy. You are the one that quoted the "beam in your own eye". Do you really think that Jesus is telling us never to judge? If so, that is a very foolish interpretation of that verse. If you think my problem is that I don't understand probability theory, study the subject and tell me where I am wrong. You see, there is a big difference between you and me. When I first started looking at the subject of evolution 20 years ago, I studied the work of the fish-to-mammals aficionados and I did it with an open mind. I studied the works of Haldane, Kimura, and in particular the work of Snyder at the National Cancer Institute who wrote a computer simulation of random mutation and natural selection. I then tried to correlate this mathematics with real examples of evolution and it became apparent what was correct and what wasn't correct. It takes a lot of work and critical thinking to do this kind of analysis and my engineering training in the analysis of complex systems certainly helps. I try to distill this down to the simplest terms for people like you but when you refuse to put in the slightest effort to try to understand this subject, don't blame me. I would much rather debate this subject with someone who understands introductory probability theory because this math, while not trivial, is really not much more difficult than a coin-tossing problem. If you know how to compute the probability of getting at least a single head outcome with the tossing of a coin five times, you will understand the fundamental mathematics of evolution. So, do your homework and try to carry on an intelligent conversation.