Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

You forgot to use the multiplication rule in your development of the theory of evolution.

There are lots of papers out there that show the benefit of combination therapy. You can start with all the papers on hiv, then you find lots of papers that show the benefit of combination herbicides for impairing the evolution of drug-resistant weeds, combination pesticides for impairing the evolution of pesticide-resistant insects,... I'm just giving the correct explanation of why it works and applying the same principles in my medical practice. The results are there if you want to see it but you don't.

There are lots of clever people out there. It is just that the people who push the theory of evolution are not as clever as they think they are.

I wouldn't necessarily attribute spirituality to mathematics any more than any other language has spirituality. I think mathematics is the most precise language there is. It is one thing to say there is cause and effect. That is qualitatively understood but not quantitatively defined. When you write down Newton's laws, you put precision in your language. If there is any spirituality in the language, whether it is mathematics or any spoken language, it is in the way you use it. So, when it says in the Bible, "as you sow so shall you reap", the spiritual component may or may not be apparent to the reader. The same can be said about math. If you overload the tires on your car, you might get a flat tire or worse.

They may not be quaking in their boots but they also aren't giving the correct mathematical explanations of the simplest evolutionary experiments, ie the Kishony and Lenski experiments. Some people are totally content in their ignorance. You know that old saying "ignorance is bliss". Well, it isn't for my patients with drug-resistant infections (or for that matter any kind of infection). There are multiple errors in that statement, but you can't recognize them. We can start with that all mutations are not all independent. Some mutations are dependent. But you have to be able to recognize under what conditions that occur because it affects how you use the multiplication rule. You have to know when to use the multiplication rule for independent events or for conditional probabilities.Then, in my original derivation, I did assume a constant population size over generations simply as a convenience. But if you look at the probability graphs, they are not a function of population size, they are a function of the total number of replications over generations. I could have written the total number of replications as a summation over all generations, or as an exponentially growing population size, or a linearly growing population size, but ultimately the probability of a particular mutation occurring is a function of the total number of replications, not the rate at which the replications are occurring.Then, your writer complains that I am not taking into account the probability of more than one such mutation occurring. My first paper on this subject considers the simplest case of DNA evolution when only a single mutation is needed to improve fitness. My second paper addressed the more complex case and extended the concepts of the first paper when more than one mutation must occur to improve fitness. Those two papers also address the differences when the mutations are independent and dependent.With regards to fitness, there is a lot of confusion on the part of the members of the fish evolve into mammals clique. If you are going to consider competition between different variants in a population, then you need to consider relative fitness. If you are going to consider adaptation to selection conditions, it is the absolute fitness (the ability to replicate, the total number of replications) that determines the probability of that variant to be able to adapt to the environmental selection condition. The math that I presented includes the total number of replications as a variable.If you can't distinguish the difference between competition and adaptation (the two components of Darwinian evolution), you will never understand the mathematics of evolution because they are two entirely different physical phenomena with two entirely different mathematical behaviors and the writer of your quote doesn't understand the difference. Complexity doesn't help your argument. Each additional selection pressure on a population in a given environment introduces another instance of the multiplication rule. That makes the evolutionary trajectory for those selection conditions markedly more difficult for a population to follow. Equation 11 from this paper gives the general equation for the probability of adaptation to any number of selection pressures:
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance
If you have trouble understanding that paper, read and understand this paper first:
The basic science and mathematics of random mutation and natural selection
If you want to see how to use the mathematics of adaptation in a competitive environment (the Lenski experiment), read this paper:
Fixation and Adaptation in the Lenski E. coli Long Term Evolution ExperimentAnd in my next paper, I'm going to show you members of the fish evolve into mammals clique the correct way to formulate the Markov Process DNA evolution models. And how you use it to predict the behavior of the Kishony experiment.Edited by Kleinman, : Typo error

Who is ranting? I'm explaining the physics and mathematics of evolution to the fish evolve into mammals clique and you are the one whining. Do the following searches:
combination+therapy+hiv => 78,800,000 hits
combination+antibiotics+resistance => 49,500,000 hits
combination+herbicides+resistance => 10,300,000 hits
combination+pesticides+resistance => 15,700,000 hits
And you want me to write another paper on the clinical use of combination antibiotics and drug-resistance? Why? So you will get 49,500,001 hits when you do that search? I'd rather write the mathematical paper that explains the empirical observation of random mutation and natural selection.
Try this search:
mathematics+random+mutation+natural+selection you only get 9,450,000 hits

At least my ranting explains the Kishony and Lenski experiments. What has your ranting explained? That's not hard, I've published the papers that explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. None of the zero papers published by the fish evolve into mammals clique and explains the math for these two experiments has contradicted these results. Shouldn't I be publishing papers about fish evolving into mammals and reptiles evolving into birds if I want to be a real scientist? I think not. My next paper is going to explain how to use a Markov chain to explain the Kishony experiment instead of the at least one rule. It's like the old saying, "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life". I'm teaching people how evolution works and they can apply the principles to infectious disease, cancers, herbicides, pesticides, rodenticides, any situation where evolutionary processes can defeat your selection pressures. You just think small.

aether
Another mythological theory brought to you by the fish evolves into mammals clique. Hey, AZPaul3, have you figured out what random means? Is it somewhere between 1 and indeterminant?

What experiments have the fish evolves into mammals clique ever explained? Really? You don't think that combination therapy for the treatment of hiv works? Do a search on the subject, you will get 78+ million hits. What have you been reading the last 20 years? And do you know the reason why it works? It's the multiplication rule! I have never ranted that fish evolves into mammals and reptiles evolve into birds. That would be mathematically irrational!

Really? You never heard of that clique? It's a group of people who think that fish evolve into mammals and reptiles evolve into birds. They also think that the multiplication rule doesn't apply to biological evolution. Their office is right next door to the offices of the flat-earth society. What's the matter? It's not enough that there are 78+ million papers and articles out there written by other researchers that show combination therapy successfully works for the treatment of hiv and now you want me to write another? How many references do you need before you will accept the mathematical fact of life of the multiplication rule? If you aren't convinced now, my writing another paper to add to the millions already out there won't make a difference for you. Why don't you make a bumper sticker that says the "multiplication rule doesn't exist"! Was this you trying to learn mathematics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4IQjUpTNVU Maybe you should try Yahoo or Bing, you might get better results.

I think that most in the fish evolve to mammals clique would think that dinos are reptiles and birds evolved from reptiles. You need to understand something about DNA evolution. When the probability of success is so low (the mutation rate), it is going to take a lot of random trials (replications) for that successful outcome. And if you have multiple selection pressures acting on a population simultaneously and those selection pressures don't drive the population to extinction, it's going to take exponentially more replications to accumulate those mutations on a lineage to improve fitness to all the selection pressures. One of the most studied examples of evolution, that of hiv to combination therapy, shows that just 3 selection pressures targeting only 2 genes are sufficient to suppress adaptation of this virus and give successful treatment. The only thing you have in common with the fish evolves to mammals clique is that neither of you understands the mathematics of evolution. At least you are skeptical enough to question the validity of the gross over-extrapolation that this clique does with random mutation and natural selection.

dad got the spelling right. It is you who got the mathematics of evolution wrong.

That's all your childish theory is worth. If the members of your fish evolve into mammals clique had any real understanding of evolution, you would have explained the Kishony and Lenski experiments long ago. All those papers support the fact that combination selection pressures suppress the evolutionary process. If you think otherwise, find one of those 78+ million papers that show otherwise. You won't. Are all you in the fish evolve into mammals clique this lazy and this mathematically incompetent? Of course, it is, this is all about explaining correctly how evolution works. You just can't prove it is wrong either mathematically or empirically so you want me to post 78+ million links to show it is correct. All you have to do is post one link that shows it's incorrect. You won't because the model I've presented is correct. And you certainly won't prove it is mathematically incorrect. They don't teach you how to do this math in your dumbbell math courses. You have to take the mathematics for scientists courses to do this math and we all know you aren't a scientist, otherwise, you wouldn't believe that fish evolve into mammals, which is mathematically irrational.

All you have to do is find one that doesn't support the math I've presented and prove it. You won't, you are all talk, no action. Sure this math improves the results. The editors of one of my papers asked how you would apply this math when treating cancer. So I included this following paragraph in the paper.
The mathematics of random mutation and natural selection for multiple simultaneous selection pressures and the evolution of antimicrobial drug resistance If the clinician can estimate the number of cells in the cancer, the clinician can estimate the number of resistant variants will be in that population which gives guidance on the number of targeted selection pressures needed to give a high probability of successful treatment.In fact, several years ago I presented one of my papers at an oncology conference. I had a discussion with one of the oncologists who told me he had a treatment for malignant melanoma and that this treatment even with severely metastasized cancers could knock out the cancer but only for about 6 weeks. What many people do not recognize is that cancer cells are not exact clones and unless your targeted treatment kills 100% of variants, you will have treatment failure. His treatment killed 99+% of the cancer cells, but that wasn't enough. He needs a second drug with a different target or a different drug that works on the same target but in a different way than the first drug. If the number of cells in the tumor is on the order of e12, it will most likely take 3 targeted drugs for successful treatment. That's what this math gives you.

I never said I read all 78+ million papers on hiv. All I've said is that none of the papers contradict the math that I've presented. Either you are too stupid to find a single paper among all those millions of papers that contradicts that math, or the paper doesn't exist. So get to work lazy clique member and find that paper. It tells you how many targeted selection pressures needed to give a high probability of treating infections and cancers. If you read the paper I linked to, I developed the math based on a failure of two-drug therapy for treating malaria. There are possible reasons for this but one not considered in that study was the possibility of de novo evolution of resistance. Malaria can achieve very high parasite loads, even up to e12 parasites. With that number of members in a population, you will have a high probability of double-drug resistant variants already in the population before treatment has started. That's the formula for treatment failure. These are general principles of how evolution works. You can apply these principles to herbicides and pesticides as well as antimicrobial and cancer treatments. They published the paragraph with the rest of the paper. And one of the editors is one of the statistics editors for the New England Journal of Medicine. He totally got the point.