Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution?
Pandeism Fish
natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
first fundamental proposition is:
Where a self-copying mechanism is capable of making copying errors
(however minute), and this mechanism exists in an environment that is
moderately variable, then successive generations of copies of the
mechanism must select against the versions least likely to succeed in
that environment....
A second is that where the environment is moderately spatially
variable, and the mechanism is capable of not only self-copying, but
also spatial relocation of itself or its copies, copies distributed to
one region will develop differently from the copies distributed to
another region, until, eventually the continuing lines represent
multiple distinct mechana....
Finally, where the environment is moderately temporally and spatially
variable (that is, the non-living environment itself changes over
periods of time, as exhibited on Earth by things such as sunrise and
sunset on a daily basis, tides and larger weather patterns over a
period of weeks, seasons on an annual basis, and continental drift
over millennia), the mechanisms can never maintain a permanent
stability (i.e. always select against all copying errors, and in favor
of "perfect" copies), but will forever be selecting against the traits
least successful in the new conditions as those conditions arise....
So, back to my original question here, is there (or could there be) a
mathematical formulation of these propositions which demonstrates them
to be not merely suppositions, but mathematical laws of the level of
certainty equal to the square of the hypotenuese of a right triangle
(on a flat surface, and in a linear system, of course) being equal to
the sum of the squares of the other two sides.... ?
rno...@umich.edu
> It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation....
<snip>
> So, back to my original question here, is there (or could there be) a
> mathematical formulation of these propositions which demonstrates them
> to be not merely suppositions, but mathematical laws of the level of
> certainty equal to the square of the hypotenuese of a right triangle
> (on a flat surface, and in a linear system, of course) being equal to
> the sum of the squares of the other two sides.... ?
Yes, it is called population genetics. It can get quite technical
mathematically. Basically, the development of this mathematical
theory is what convinced people that Mendel's genetics was the
machinery behind Darwin's evolution. That is the so-called "modern
synthesis" which is now more than a half century old.
John S. Wilkins
One can find these mathematical propositions of evolution here:
Michod, Richard E. 1999. Darwinian dynamics: evolutionary transitions in
fitness and individuality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Iain
It can certánly be próven that it máks logical sense, given certán
premises concerning the physical wurld.
Sé the jurnal Évolúshionáry Compúting.
--Iain
Perplexed in Peoria
news:3ab3fd6a-6bfa-4df2...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
> first fundamental proposition is:
>
> Where a self-copying mechanism is capable of making copying errors
> (however minute), and this mechanism exists in an environment that is
> moderately variable,
Variability in the environment is not needed. What you need is variation
in the population (not everybody is the same).
> then successive generations of copies of the
> mechanism must select against the versions least likely to succeed in
> that environment....
>
> A second is that where the environment is moderately spatially
> variable, and the mechanism is capable of not only self-copying, but
> also spatial relocation of itself or its copies, copies distributed to
> one region will develop differently from the copies distributed to
> another region, until, eventually the continuing lines represent
> multiple distinct mechana....
Again, for natural selection, you don't need an environment which
varies from place to place. I'm not sure what you are gettting at
here, but it seems to be a simplified version of allopatric speciation.
Look up that phrase on wiki.
> Finally, where the environment is moderately temporally and spatially
> variable (that is, the non-living environment itself changes over
> periods of time, as exhibited on Earth by things such as sunrise and
> sunset on a daily basis, tides and larger weather patterns over a
> period of weeks, seasons on an annual basis, and continental drift
> over millennia), the mechanisms can never maintain a permanent
> stability (i.e. always select against all copying errors, and in favor
> of "perfect" copies), but will forever be selecting against the traits
> least successful in the new conditions as those conditions arise....
What you seem to be getting at here is some kind of 'ratcheting' which
leads to perpetual increases in organism complexity. Again, this is
not part of the standard theory of natural selection. But something like
what you describe may be possible, and hence might become part of
a larger theory of biological evolution. But AFAIK, it is not part of the
standard theory now.
> So, back to my original question here, is there (or could there be) a
> mathematical formulation of these propositions which demonstrates them
> to be not merely suppositions, but mathematical laws of the level of
> certainty equal to the square of the hypotenuese of a right triangle
> (on a flat surface, and in a linear system, of course) being equal to
> the sum of the squares of the other two sides.... ?
As rnorman answered, this field of theory is called population genetics.
In this field, one proves theorems at a high level of certainty. The only
issue is whether those theorems apply to the real world. And I think
that the answer is that (with a high level of certainty) they do NOT apply.
The models of population genetics always involve unrealistic simplifications.
Charles Brenner
That sounds similar to the Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection
(introduced by Fisher, later extended considerably by various
authors). Ewens (Mathematical Population Genetics) states "... as
asserted by Fisher (1930, 1958), the FTNS is an exact result, implying
no approximations, and it applies to non-random-mating as well as
random-mating populations since no assumption about the mating scheme
is made in the analysis. We extend the FTNS as an exact result [in
this book] to the case where fitness depends on an arbitrary number of
loci, up to and including all those in the entire genome, under any
form of mating, random or otherwise."
Steven L.
Oversimplified models wouldn't by themselves yield totally inapplicable
results--you would expect at least roughly approximate
predictions--except that population genetics seems to be extremely
sensitive to initial conditions (i.e., population dynamics is a chaotic
process). Just like long-range weather forecasting.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Perplexed in Peoria
If the result is exact, it tells us nothing interesting about the world. If the
result tells us something about the world, then it is not exact.
Consider the implications of the fact that this version of the FTNS is
exact. This means that it applies to the dandelions in my lawn,
*regardless* of whether I pluck dandelions or not. Regardless of
whether I pluck the big ones or the small ones. Regardless of
whether the bees succeed in pollenating the dandelions. Regardless
of whether the lawn is paved over and turned into a parking lot.
The FTNS makes 'predictions' which are exactly correct in every
one of these eventualities. Which is another way of saying that it
makes no predictions at all. It really IS a tautology.
rno...@umich.edu
wrote:
I think you are confusing population genetics with some Laplacian
deterministic theory of the universe. Population genetics is not
concerned with the fall of every sparrow; with the notion that if the
tiger goes around the tree on this side I live, but if it goes around
the other way, I die. It is and always has been a probabilistic
theory dealing with expected values and the like.
Charles Brenner
Right. I think that's the theorem.
> Which is another way of saying that it makes no predictions at all.
Why do you say that? Are you imagining that the prediction is the same
in each case?
Pandeism Fish
> On Apr 6, 10:41 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Charles Brenner" <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not at all looking for consistency in the prediction (i.e. that
the model will always develop the same way), just consistency in the
fact that the model will always develop.... in other words, a
mathematical proof that, if you start with three factors -- a) a
mechanism capable of copying itself, b) the possibility of copying
error, and c) an environment which is stable enough that environmental
changes will not wipe out the self-copying mechanism, and yet
changeable enough that the characteristics defining the "least fit"
mechanism will not be the same from one series of generations to the
next -- the result will inevitably be some sort of evolution by
natural selection (what sort matters not)....
Occidental
wrote:
Dandelions produce seeds asexually, without pollination.The
"flowers" (actually florets) are obviously useless and are believed to
be holdovers from an earlier sexual type.
Yes, I know this has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, and
you could have picked a different organism to make your point.
Pandeism Fish
wrote:
> "PandeismFish" <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3ab3fd6a-6bfa-4df2...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> > natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
> > first fundamental proposition is:
>
> > Where a self-copying mechanism is capable of making copying errors
> > (however minute), and this mechanism exists in an environment that is
> > moderately variable,
>
> Variability in the environment is not needed. What you need is variation
> in the population (not everybody is the same).
>
If the environment is invariable, then it is conceivable that there
may be evolutionary stasis; where the environment is variable, this
becomes impossible....
> > then successive generations of copies of the
> > mechanism must select against the versions least likely to succeed in
> > that environment....
>
> > A second is that where the environment is moderately spatially
> > variable, and the mechanism is capable of not only self-copying, but
> > also spatial relocation of itself or its copies, copies distributed to
> > one region will develop differently from the copies distributed to
> > another region, until, eventually the continuing lines represent
> > multiple distinct mechana....
>
> Again, for natural selection, you don't need an environment which
> varies from place to place. I'm not sure what you are gettting at
> here, but it seems to be a simplified version of allopatric speciation.
> Look up that phrase on wiki.
>
Yes, I'm saying that geographic variability (combined with mobility on
the part of the reproducing mechana) makes speciation inevitable....
> > Finally, where the environment is moderately temporally and spatially
> > variable (that is, the non-living environment itself changes over
> > periods of time, as exhibited on Earth by things such as sunrise and
> > sunset on a daily basis, tides and larger weather patterns over a
> > period of weeks, seasons on an annual basis, and continental drift
> > over millennia), the mechanisms can never maintain a permanent
> > stability (i.e. always select against all copying errors, and in favor
> > of "perfect" copies), but will forever be selecting against the traits
> > least successful in the new conditions as those conditions arise....
>
> What you seem to be getting at here is some kind of 'ratcheting' which
> leads to perpetual increases in organism complexity. Again, this is
> not part of the standard theory of natural selection. But something like
> what you describe may be possible, and hence might become part of
> a larger theory of biological evolution. But AFAIK, it is not part of the
> standard theory now.
>
Not necessarily a perpetual increase in complexity, just a perpetual
process of change.... I'm sure that sometimes organisms can evolve
towards simplicity (e.g. by loss of a gene that produces a useless
vestigial organ)....
Perplexed in Peoria
> On Apr 6, 1:41 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Consider the implications of the fact that this version of the FTNS is
> > exact. This means that it applies to the dandelions in my lawn,
> > *regardless* of whether I pluck dandelions or not. Regardless of
> > whether I pluck the big ones or the small ones. Regardless of
> > whether the bees succeed in pollenating the dandelions.
>
> Dandelions produce seeds asexually, without pollination.The
> "flowers" (actually florets) are obviously useless and are believed to
> be holdovers from an earlier sexual type.
> Yes, I know this has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, and
> you could have picked a different organism to make your point.
Yes, I could pick a sexual organism instead of an asexual one. The FTNS
doesn't care. And that, by itself, helps to make my point. Nor does it care
whether the 'organisms' actually reproduce or whether some other relationship
between entities is being used to represent parentage. The FTNS is simply a
mathematical identity stating that two different ways of counting up the same
thing give the same result.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
It also applies to populations, not to individual organisms.
The laws of chemistry can predict the behavior of gases very
accurately, but can't predict the motion of a single atom or molecule
within that gas.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
[M]adman
> It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
> first fundamental proposition is:
There is no evolution in the first place.
A population of fish can not give rise to a population of humans.
period.
rno...@umich.edu
> Pandeism Fish wrote:
> > It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> > natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
> > first fundamental proposition is:
>
> There is no evolution in the first place.
The first place was Eden. It was perfection and there was no
evolution. However, after the fall, in the second place, evolution
started. The original Adam and Eve fish swimming so comfortably in
the Edenic Lake had to hobble ashore and quickly mutate into people.
heekster
>Pandeism Fish wrote:
>> It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
>> natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
>> first fundamental proposition is:
>
>
>There is no evolution in the first place.
>
Wrong answer.
>A population of fish can not give rise to a population of humans.
>
"In addition, direct comparisons of the fish DNA with the human DNA
show that more human genes will be found by comparing fish with man.
In this way, the pufferfish sequence is helping to find previously
undiscovered features in the human genome sequence--a process often
compared to the decipherment of the Rosetta stone."
http://www.jgi.doe.gov/News/news_7_25_02.html
>period.
>
Take a Midol, bitch.
--
Ridendo dicere verum.
Charles Brenner
Maybe, or those requirements may be too vague. On reflection the FTNS
isn't directly applicable, for as far as I know it is formulated only
for the situation of a diploid organism.
Ye Old One
Some did.
>
>period.
No, it is just your bloody nose from so many beatings.
--
Bob.
[M]adman
Want some panama red to go with that acid?
[M]adman
Common design moron.
>
>> period.
>>
> Take a Midol, bitch.
Bite me
wf3h
it already did.
what has never happened is that creationism can explain a rock falling
off a cliff let alone the secrets of nature. you creationists think
you know all the answers.
but you
k.n.o.w. n.o.t.h.i.n.g.
>
> period.
William Morse
> On Apr 6, 10:13 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> "PandeismFish" <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:3ab3fd6a-6bfa-4df2-
b891-139...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
>> > natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
>> > first fundamental proposition is:
>>
>> > Where a self-copying mechanism is capable of making copying errors
>> > (however minute), and this mechanism exists in an environment that is
>> > moderately variable,
>>
>> Variability in the environment is not needed. What you need is
>> variation in the population (not everybody is the same).
>>
>>
> If the environment is invariable, then it is conceivable that there may
> be evolutionary stasis; where the environment is variable, this becomes
> impossible....
What PIP may be alluding to is that part of any organism's environment is
other organisms. So changes in organisms will create changes in the
environment.
heekster
Of course you are.
>>
>>> period.
>>>
>> Take a Midol, bitch.
>
>
>Bite me
>
Go find a gator or a cottonmouth, you sick little monkey.
Rich Mathers
You want this after he has already slapped you?!
Pandeism Fish
wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:13:52 -0700,PandeismFish wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 10:13 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> "PandeismFish" <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:3ab3fd6a-6bfa-4df2-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> >> > natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
> >> > first fundamental proposition is:
>
> >> > Where a self-copying mechanism is capable of making copying errors
> >> > (however minute), and this mechanism exists in an environment that is
> >> > moderately variable,
>
> >> Variability in the environment is not needed. What you need is
> >> variation in the population (not everybody is the same).
>
> > If the environment is invariable, then it is conceivable that there may
> > be evolutionary stasis; where the environment is variable, this becomes
> > impossible....
>
> What PIP may be alluding to is that part of any organism's environment is
> other organisms. So changes in organisms will create changes in the
> environment.
Well really it doesn't matter what it is that makes the environment
variable (including other organisms) so long as it is variable in some
way.... as all environments are. But unless we're talking about a
world with no seasons, no geographic features, and no day/night, we
are talking about quite a bit of variability not even premised on
other the presence of other organisms....
If you have a clump of one-celled creatures living on some planet, and
they are the only life on that planet, and they are capable of self-
replicating, they will do one of two things: die out or evolve; there
is no third option of true stasis (every generation going forward
continues to be a carbon copy of those past).... I want to eb able to
express the truth of this in mathematical terms, through a proof of
comparable strength to those Newton devised to demonstrate the basic
laws of physics....
[M]adman
*I* did not evolve from a monkey. THAT would be you
Iain
>
> There is no evolution in the first place.
>
> A population of fish can not give rise to a population of humans.
Will you be sending your research into Evolutionary Computing for
verification?
--Iain
hersheyh
> It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
> first fundamental proposition is:
>
> (however minute), and this mechanism exists in an environment that is
> mechanism must select against the versions least likely to succeed in
> that environment....
>
> A second is that where the environment is moderately spatially
> variable, and the mechanism is capable of not only self-copying, but
> also spatial relocation of itself or its copies, copies distributed to
> one region will develop differently from the copies distributed to
> another region, until, eventually the continuing lines represent
> multiple distinct mechana....
>
> variable (that is, the non-living environment itself changes over
> periods of time, as exhibited on Earth by things such as sunrise and
> sunset on a daily basis, tides and larger weather patterns over a
> period of weeks, seasons on an annual basis, and continental drift
> over millennia), the mechanisms can never maintain a permanent
> stability (i.e. always select against all copying errors, and in favor
> of "perfect" copies), but will forever be selecting against the traits
> least successful in the new conditions as those conditions arise....
In biology, the term 'environment' is often used in much more
expansive way than merely the physical non-living environment. It
includes other organisms, including prey, parasites, and even gene
combinations in one's own genome other than the one being studied.
And keep in mind that much of the biologically relevant physical
features, such as level of nitrogen in soils, free oxygen in the air,
etc., are due to other living organisms.
>
> So, back to my original question here, is there (or could there be) a
> mathematical formulation of these propositions which demonstrates them
> to be not merely suppositions, but mathematical laws of the level of
> certainty equal to the square of the hypotenuese of a right triangle
> (on a flat surface, and in a linear system, of course) being equal to
> the sum of the squares of the other two sides.... ?
Well, to the level of certainty that applies to any statistical
analysis. One can never predict the precise fate of any individual
member of a species, but can map their collective chances under
specified conditions. But, as you point out, any specified conditions
are about as "forever" as 'true love' in a pre-teen. There is
actually a large field of mathematics that exists called "population
genetics" that is quite sophisticated. And, of course, there are
creationist bastardizations and 'dumbing-down' of this field,
exemplified by the "work" of people like Dembski and Pitman.
hersheyh
>
> news:3ab3fd6a-6bfa-4df2...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> > natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
> > first fundamental proposition is:
>
> > Where a self-copying mechanism is capable of making copying errors
> > (however minute), and this mechanism exists in an environment that is
> > moderately variable,
>
> in the population (not everybody is the same).
That depends on how currently optimized the population is to that
environment within the constraints of its historical genome. If
optimized, it may be very difficult to generate significant
*selective* change that is an improvement, but, of course, it is
always impossible to avoid non-selective drift. This optimization to
a stable environment is probably one of the reasons for the long
periods of "stasis" in selectively relevant phenotypes. And, we do
all recognize that selection is overwhelmingly conservative in
nature. There is no doubt that a significantly changed environment
generates the opportunity (but not the assurance; extinction happens)
for selectively relevant change in phenotype.
>
> > then successive generations of copies of the
> > mechanism must select against the versions least likely to succeed in
> > that environment....
>
> > A second is that where the environment is moderately spatially
> > variable, and the mechanism is capable of not only self-copying, but
> > also spatial relocation of itself or its copies, copies distributed to
> > one region will develop differently from the copies distributed to
> > another region, until, eventually the continuing lines represent
> > multiple distinct mechana....
>
> Again, for natural selection, you don't need an environment which
> varies from place to place. I'm not sure what you are gettting at
> here, but it seems to be a simplified version of allopatric speciation.
> Look up that phrase on wiki.
>
> > Finally, where the environment is moderately temporally and spatially
> > variable (that is, the non-living environment itself changes over
> > periods of time, as exhibited on Earth by things such as sunrise and
> > sunset on a daily basis, tides and larger weather patterns over a
> > period of weeks, seasons on an annual basis, and continental drift
> > over millennia), the mechanisms can never maintain a permanent
> > stability (i.e. always select against all copying errors, and in favor
> > of "perfect" copies), but will forever be selecting against the traits
> > least successful in the new conditions as those conditions arise....
>
> What you seem to be getting at here is some kind of 'ratcheting' which
> leads to perpetual increases in organism complexity. Again, this is
> not part of the standard theory of natural selection. But something like
> what you describe may be possible, and hence might become part of
> a larger theory of biological evolution. But AFAIK, it is not part of the
> standard theory now.
>
> > So, back to my original question here, is there (or could there be) a
> > mathematical formulation of these propositions which demonstrates them
> > to be not merely suppositions, but mathematical laws of the level of
> > certainty equal to the square of the hypotenuese of a right triangle
> > (on a flat surface, and in a linear system, of course) being equal to
> > the sum of the squares of the other two sides.... ?
>
TomS
<76e76bb1-c404-45e0...@l19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, Iain
stated..."
I think that it's interesting that it's phrased with the word
*population*. Rather than "a fish turns into a man", which is what
I would expect a real creationist to say.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
hersheyh
wrote:
> "Pandeism Fish" <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]
> As rnorman answered, this field of theory is called population genetics.
> In this field, one proves theorems at a high level of certainty. The only
> issue is whether those theorems apply to the real world. And I think
> that the answer is that (with a high level of certainty) they do NOT apply.
> The models of population genetics always involve unrealistic simplifications.
As do most mathematical models of complex processes with many
variables. The question is whether, to the extent that similar
variables exist in the "real, more complex world", they affect events
in the same direction and in roughly similar quantitative fashion.
That is why it is important that the working assumptions be clearly
stated. To see examples of poor mathematical models of population
genetics with unrealistic simplifications and unstated assumptions, I
heartedly recommend the work of Sean Pitman.
Bill
> On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>
> Yes, it is called population genetics.
No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
Proof can make predictions.
Evolution *cannot*.
For example, evolution *cannot* predict wether say man will be
smarter
or dumber (like Ye Old One) in the future.
There is *no* mathematical *proof* of evolution.
Charles Brenner
The lack of reply suggests I'm on the right track in guessing how PiP
mistook Ewens' explanation (not to dismiss rnorman's point). To expand
slightly, by "case" I meant the various hypothetical scenarios
mentioned by PiP. The FTNS prediction is a formula that has fitness
parameters in it. If big flowers don't do so well -- such as by the
agency of a Perplexed Designer picking them -- then the alleles
associated with bigness have a diminished fitness and consequently the
FTNS will correctly predict the effect on them of selective pressure.
Iain
> "On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:22:25 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Apr 6, 11:46=A0pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>
> >> There is no evolution in the first place.
>
> >> A population of fish can not give rise to a population of humans.
>
> >Will you be sending your research into Evolutionary Computing for
> >verification?
>
> >--Iain
>
> I think that it's interesting that it's phrased with the word
> *population*. Rather than "a fish turns into a man", which is what
> I would expect a real creationist to say.
Yes, and moreover, Madman did use the phrase 'fish to man' earlier
today.
--Iain
Seanpit
Oh, this is rich. Howard himself has no mathematical model to support
his theory of the creative powers of the mechanism of random mutations
combined with natural selection - not at all. He himself admits that
the likelihood that his stories about how evolution could have worked
in the past are "not computable". Just ask him. Ask him for a
formula to calculate the odds that any system that requires a certain
number of specifically arranged building blocks will evolve in any
gene pool in a given span of time - like a million years. He has no
idea how to produce such an estimate that has any useful predictive
value beyond a useless just-so story. He cannot produce even a rough
estimate of likelihood. Yet, he continually claims that his mechanism
is not only the likely explanation for high levels of novel
information being produced within living systems, but that his
mechanism is absolutely the mechanism that did the job - for a fact.
How does he know? Amazing bravado or blind faith in his fairytale
stores is all I can see - certainly not science or anything remotely
close to a resemblance of real science.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
> On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>
> > Yes, it is called population genetics.
>
> No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>
> Proof can make predictions.
>
> Evolution *cannot*.
evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
and that prediction is 1 more than creationism has predicted correctly
in 2000 years.
>
> For example, evolution *cannot* predict wether say man will be
> smarter
> or dumber (like Ye Old One) in the future.
>
> There is *no* mathematical *proof* of evolution.
google 'mathematics and evolution'
and where, pray tell, can we read the mathematics behind creationism?
oh. we can't. there are none.
wf3h
> On Apr 7, 7:07 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > As do most mathematical models of complex processes with many
> > variables. The question is whether, to the extent that similar
> > variables exist in the "real, more complex world", they affect events
> > in the same direction and in roughly similar quantitative fashion.
> > That is why it is important that the working assumptions be clearly
> > stated. To see examples of poor mathematical models of population
> > genetics with unrealistic simplifications and unstated assumptions, I
> > heartedly recommend the work ofSeanPitman.
>
> Oh, this is rich. Howard himself has no mathematical model to support
> his theory of the creative powers of the mechanism of random mutations
> combined with natural selection - not at all.
and craetionism? after 2 millenia...2000 years...empires have come and
gone...
creationism has not a single equation to its name. if you google
'evolution and mathematics' you get tens of thousands of pages....
creationism? you hear crickets chirping.
>
> How does he know? Amazing bravado or blind faith in his fairytale
> stores is all I can see - certainly not science or anything remotely
> close to a resemblance of real science.
>
natural selection is testable in the lab. you yourself admit it exists
and creationism? it has produced nothing. in 2000 years not a single
solitary feature of nature...NONE...has been explained by your
beliefs, sean.
darwin explained more in 20 years than YOUR beliefs have in 2000
Bill
> On Apr 7, 10:19 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>
> > > Yes, it is called population genetics.
>
> > No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>
> > Proof can make predictions.
>
> > Evolution *cannot*.
>
> evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
No a nested hierarchy is an observation.
A prediction would be "wher the next leaf will sprout".
> and that prediction is 1 more than creationism has predicted correctly
> in 2000 years.
You didn't make a prediction. (Ah well).
> > For example, evolution *cannot* predict wether say man will be
> > smarter
> > or dumber (like Ye Old One) in the future.
>
> > There is *no* mathematical *proof* of evolution.
>
> google 'mathematics and evolution'
And?
Should I google *proof of aliens* too?
> and where, pray tell, can we read the mathematics behind creationism?
>
> oh. we can't. there are none.
So we are "equal" and back to square 1.
Go figure.
Perplexed in Peoria
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:13:52 -0700, Pandeism Fish wrote:
>
>> On Apr 6, 10:13 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
>>> > natural selection are susceptible to mathematical formulation.... the
>>> > first fundamental proposition is:
>>>
>>> > Where a self-copying mechanism is capable of making copying errors
>>> > (however minute), and this mechanism exists in an environment that is
>>>
>>> Variability in the environment is not needed. What you need is
>>> variation in the population (not everybody is the same).
>>>
>> If the environment is invariable, then it is conceivable that there may
>> be evolutionary stasis; where the environment is variable, this becomes
>> impossible....
>
> What PIP may be alluding to is that part of any organism's environment is
> other organisms. So changes in organisms will create changes in the
> environment.
That is true, of course, but it is not what I was alluding to. My point was
simply that an environment which changes in time or space is not needed
for natural selection to operate. Nor is a changing environment necessary
or sufficient to prevent evolutionary stasis.
Perplexed in Peoria
If you have a clump of one-celled creatures living on some planet, and
they are the only life on that planet, and they are capable of self-
replicating, they will do one of two things: die out or evolve; there
is no third option of true stasis (every generation going forward
continues to be a carbon copy of those past).... [snip]
Why do you say that stasis is not an option? It certainly seems to
be a logical possibility to me. As long as the flow of nutrients
continues.
rno...@umich.edu
wrote:
Stasis is a logical possibility, true, but one with an extremely tiny
probability of occurence, that probability ever decreasing with time.
rno...@umich.edu
wrote:
If the environment includes other organisms, then a change in the
environment is necessarily a consequence of natural selection. That
is, as long as there are two populations in the system, a change in
one is automatically an altered environment for the other. Even
"physical factors" of the environment like soil structure and
composition, wave action, and climate are themselves influenced by the
biota.
Given that evolution includes a random walk component (genetic drift),
stasis is mathematically so improbable that it is as good as
impossible.
Pandeism Fish
wrote:
A superficial appearance of stasis may be an option, for a period, but
that does not mean that the organism in question is in a true stasis
-- i.e., every generation is a carbon copy of the past, and any
copying errors are immediately selected against.... horseshoe crabs
have been around for hundreds of millions of years, and have looked
pretty much the same for the whole span of it, but only recently has
it been determined that on a very subtle level, they have undergone
evolutionary change at a faster rate than most living things!!
Pandeism Fish
> On Apr 7, 5:49 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "William Morse" <wdNOSPAmo...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote:
I think the probability of stasis is zero!! So long as there is
copying error in any generation of an organism, there will be random
mutations; stasis would be the rejection of all mutations, that is,
every single one is selected against in the next generation.... but
even mildly harmful mutations are not necessarily selected against,
and certainly neutral mutations are not, and beneficial mutations are
selected in favor of.... so in any generation of a given reproducing
population, there are bound to be copying errors (again, however
minute), and some of those errors will be carried on thereafter -- the
proportion may approach zero, but it is inconceivable that it well
ever reach zero....
The Universe practically demands that this be so!!
Ye Old One
You are an ape. You evolved from other apes.
--
Bob.
gregwrld
Sean, you have no idea under
what conditions flagella (for example)
evolved or "appeared". That alone
makes all of your calculations
meaningless.
As far as fairy-tales go your
own bias shows through clearly.
gregwrld
rno...@umich.edu
There is a non-zero probability that an organism resulting from a
mutation will die without leaving any progeny. There is a non-zero
probability that every such organism will die without leaving any
progeny. This is true whether or not the mutation is beneficial or
deleterious. Even a mutation that produces an enormous increase in
fitness can die out by chance.
It is conceivable that none of the errors ever get propagated. The
probability of such an event is so tiny that it is impossible -- for
all practical purposes. However the probability is not zero.
It is zero to x number of significant figures, but not mathematically
zero.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
No, that's like asking a meteorologist to predict a year ahead of time
whether it will rain on a certain date.
But a climatologist could predict that given a rise in global
temperature, ocean storms that *do occur will be more vigorous.
So too can evolutionists make certain kinds of predictions.
Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be found of proto-
humans in Africa.
Shubin predicted finding tiktaalik fossils where he looked for them,
and what their characteristics would be.
The traits of ambulocetus was predicted.
The nested hierarchy of genomes was predicted, both its existence and
that fact that it matches the nested hierarchy of morphology (there is
no reason for a Creator to nest junk DNA, for example).
Microbiologists and virologists use evolutionary predictions to deal
with infections and develop antibiotics and vaccines, Do I have to
remind you of Lenski's wonderful work with e. coli and a strain that
evolved to exploit citrates? He could not have known ahead of time
which molecular pathways that strain would take.
Natural selection can only act on mutations which happen - evolution
is not teleological.
Pandeism Fish
>
> - Show quoted text -
What is the probability of an organism reproducing with no copying
error at all (essentially a clone of the parent)? What is the
probability of this happening over successive generations?
heekster
Of course you did not.
That would constitute devolution, not evolution.
--
Ridendo dicere verum.
Paul J Gans
Which of the many gods told you that?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Stuart
> On Apr 7, 4:29 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 10:19 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>
> > > > Yes, it is called population genetics.
>
> > > No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>
> > > Proof can make predictions.
>
> > > Evolution *cannot*.
>
> > evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
>
> No a nested hierarchy is an observation.
It is also a prediction, or perhaps more correctly
a retrodiction in this case.
Common descent predicts life is ordered with a
multiply nested heirarchy.
Creationism imposes no formal constraints as to how life
appears hence it can make no predictions.
>
> A prediction would be "wher the next leaf will sprout".
You have an erroneous view of what constitutes a "prediction"
Like most creatobabblers you confuse "prediction" as understood in
science with "prognostication".
Thanks for playing.
Stuart
Paul J Gans
>On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>>
>> Yes, it is called population genetics.
>No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>Proof can make predictions.
Well, it is a sort of prime number.
I guess you enjoy redefining things because you think it
gets you somewhere. Proofs do NOT make predictions. The
word has numerous related meanings in different fields.
In mathematics a proof of a statement is a demonstration
that it can be deduced from previously accepted statements
in the field. It says nothing about predictions.
>Evolution *cannot*.
Make predictions? Of course it can. And it does.
>For example, evolution *cannot* predict wether say man will be
>smarter
>or dumber (like Ye Old One) in the future.
That is true. Evolution makes no statements about individuals.
It also makes no statements about tomorrow's weather.
>There is *no* mathematical *proof* of evolution.
In the sense of pure mathematics at this point, no.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
<sea...@gmail.com>:
<snip>
>...Howard himself has no mathematical model to support
>his theory of the creative powers of the mechanism of random mutations
>combined with natural selection - not at all. He himself admits that
>the likelihood that his stories about how evolution could have worked
>in the past are "not computable".
OK, so now according to you we have no mathematical model
for evolution (which has nevertheless been observed numerous
times), and we never have had a mathematical model for
creation, which has never been observed.
So we must not exist, right?
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
rno...@umich.edu
This is utter silliness. I agree with you and have done so all along
that the probability is so small that it is for all practical purposes
negligible. But it is not actually zero.
What is the probability that the molecules of sugar in my tea will all
spontaneously meander around by brownian motion to form a perfect lump
of sugar? It will "never happen" but the probability is not actually
zero.
What is the probability that if I drop one coin in every slot machine
in a big casino that I will hit the jackpot in each and every one? It
will "never happen" but the probability is not actually zero.
You said "I think the probability of stasis is zero!! " Zero in
mathematics means zero, not an incredibly small number like one over a
googolplex.
Bill
> On Apr 7, 7:19 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>
> > > Yes, it is called population genetics.
>
> > No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>
> > Proof can make predictions.
>
> > Evolution *cannot*.
>
> > For example, evolution *cannot* predict wether say man will be
> > smarter
> > or dumber (like Ye Old One) in the future.
>
> > There is *no* mathematical *proof* of evolution.
>
> No, that's like asking a meteorologist to predict a year ahead of time
> whether it will rain on a certain date.
>
> But a climatologist could predict that given a rise in global
> temperature, ocean storms that *do occur will be more vigorous.
But that's not *proof*. That's the point.
Bill
And like most evanutionologists you confuse *fact* with *theory*, and
*proof* with *model*.
Bill
> Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >> On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>
> >> Yes, it is called population genetics.
> >No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
> >Proof can make predictions.
>
> Well, it is a sort of prime number.
>
> I guess you enjoy redefining things because you think it
> gets you somewhere. Proofs do NOT make predictions. The
> word has numerous related meanings in different fields.
> In mathematics a proof of a statement is a demonstration
> that it can be deduced from previously accepted statements
> in the field. It says nothing about predictions.
In mathematics *proof* holds in all situations.
13 is prime, I can prove it is, and I can predict 17 is the next
prime.
You haven't even explained your *proof*. Just saying;
"oh ya, evolution is proven mathematically, but you won't find it on
the net.
It has to do with mendal, and population genetics"
Isn't a *proof*.
Give me the link of your *proof*.
Let's see if it stands up to scrutiny.
> >Evolution *cannot*.
>
> Make predictions? Of course it can. And it does.
No it can't. & no it doesn't.
> >For example, evolution *cannot* predict wether say man will be
> >smarter or dumber (like Ye Old One) in the future.
>
> That is true. Evolution makes no statements about individuals.
> It also makes no statements about tomorrow's weather.
And makes no predictions.
> >There is *no* mathematical *proof* of evolution.
>
> In the sense of pure mathematics at this point, no.
Yes. I know. Shame all the other numskies on T.O don't.
wf3h
> On Apr 7, 4:29 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 10:19 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>
> > > > Yes, it is called population genetics.
>
> > > No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>
> > > Proof can make predictions.
>
> > > Evolution *cannot*.
>
> > evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
>
> No a nested hierarchy is an observation.
it is also a prediction. if evolution is true, then all life should
result in a nested hierarchy. humans should have ancestors.
populations should have descendents. and they should show change.
>
> A prediction would be "wher the next leaf will sprout".
>
who says?
> > and that prediction is 1 more than creationism has predicted correctly
> > in 2000 years.
>
> You didn't make a prediction. (Ah well).
i made a prediction. and i also pointed out you made zero. creationism
in 2000 years has made alot of predictions
all of them wrong.
>
> > > For example, evolution *cannot* predict wether say man will be
> > > smarter
> > > or dumber (like Ye Old One) in the future.
>
> > > There is *no* mathematical *proof* of evolution.
>
> > google 'mathematics and evolution'
>
> And?
>
> Should I google *proof of aliens* too?
i see you didn't do it. too lazy, i suppose. creatoinsits are
parasites...relying on scientists to do the real work then trying to
propagandize the results for 'god did it'
>
> > and where, pray tell, can we read the mathematics behind creationism?
>
> > oh. we can't. there are none.
>
> So we are "equal" and back to square 1.
>
> Go figure.-
prediction requested
prediction made
prediction tested. that's evolution
so where did you say we could see a CORRECT prediction of
creationism?
oh. there aren't any.
creationism is useless
wf3h
and like all creationists you confuse 'myth' with 'fact'
2000 years. always wrong. creationsm.
wf3h
> On Apr 7, 4:29 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
>
> No a nested hierarchy is an observation.
>
> A prediction would be "wher the next leaf will sprout".
>
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in
pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found.
He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock
was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid
argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting
in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They
were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain
microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a
transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and
baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different
populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts
we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs,
since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous
seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different
kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of
ammonite together in the same rockbed.
Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely
related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and
more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a
hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all
have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have
all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have
all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that
plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face
and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of
calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-
arthropod.
Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve
independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have
differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of
molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and
ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on
different insects.
In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development,
part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of
the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that
there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw
joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since
been found - the cynodont therapsids.
wf3h
> On Apr 7, 4:29 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 10:19 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>
> > > > Yes, it is called population genetics.
>
> > > No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>
> > > Proof can make predictions.
>
> > > Evolution *cannot*.
>
> > evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
>
> No a nested hierarchy is an observation.
>
> A prediction would be "wher the next leaf will sprout".
>
> > and that prediction is 1 more than creationism has predicted correctly
> > in 2000 years.
>
> You didn't make a prediction. (Ah well).
>
failed predictions of creationism:
1. There should be no transitional species.
2. There are most certainly no pre-human species.
3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the
chronological evolution of life.
4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several,
having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.
5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs
and humans) living together at the same time.
wf3h
wrong. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made
from the Theory of Evolution:
It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since
other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have
fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An
examination of human embryonic development showed that an
intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your
upper jaw.
From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns
will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer,
but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider
monkey genome.
In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a
primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was
very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found.
Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had
teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved
Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second
Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was
predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this,
and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function
mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in
Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which
is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy
has been turned off.
In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one
species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it
would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced
through natural selection."
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such
thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get
something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species
(kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk)
don't count.
Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30
centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the
bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that
drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For
that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So,
Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race.
Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard
against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be
more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario
applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge
size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and
deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of
hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902,
forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue.
And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids
did set less seed than long ones.
A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had
a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that
flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on
remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no
need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on
flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species
arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that
no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now
that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was
a correct prediction.
The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly
different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the
two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the
sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure
which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral
sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from
a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the
ancestral sequence.
This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows,
sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made
on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein
molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are
chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the
manufactured molecules were biologically active substances.
Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is
supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while
growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their
slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh
water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms
evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of
the heavy atoms.)
Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's
bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean.
This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of
river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since
whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land
animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in
fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore,
the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope
ratios in modern river dolphins.
It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest
species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in
fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt
water.
Bill
> On Apr 7, 11:59 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
>
> > No a nested hierarchy is an observation.
>
> it is also a prediction. if evolution is true, then all life should
> result in a nested hierarchy.
Exactly.
*ALL* life *does not* fall into a "nested Hierarchy", you just
falsified your own theory.
Congratulations.
Bill
> On Apr 7, 11:59 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> failed predictions of creationism:
>
> 1. There should be no transitional species.
Wrong.
*Any* design has transitional models.
Show me 1 invention that isn't transitional.
> 2. There are most certainly no pre-human species.
Wrong.
*All* life is "pre-human". You should get out of bed earlier.
> 3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the
> chronological evolution of life.
Wrong.
Theres plenty of evidence showing the progressive work of a designer.
> 4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several,
> having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.
Wrong.
You'll have to show me a bible verse. Can't remember reading that one.
> 5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs
> and humans) living together at the same time.
Wrong.
Bill
> On Apr 7, 7:32 pm, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made
> from the Theory of Evolution:
<snip>
Non-proof noted.
When you find the mathematical *proof* please. feel free to post it.
(that *was* the original question)
Gees, how many posts are you gonna make before you admit there isn't
one?
Paul J Gans
>On Apr 7, 10:56 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>>
>> >> Yes, it is called population genetics.
>> >No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>> >Proof can make predictions.
>>
>> Well, it is a sort of prime number.
>>
>> I guess you enjoy redefining things because you think it
>> gets you somewhere. Proofs do NOT make predictions. The
>> word has numerous related meanings in different fields.
>> In mathematics a proof of a statement is a demonstration
>> that it can be deduced from previously accepted statements
>> in the field. It says nothing about predictions.
>In mathematics *proof* holds in all situations.
>13 is prime, I can prove it is, and I can predict 17 is the next
>prime.
No, you can't *predict* it. You can *prove* that it is prime,
but that is a totally different thing.
>You haven't even explained your *proof*. Just saying;
What proof? Do you have me confused with somebody else?
>"oh ya, evolution is proven mathematically, but you won't find it on
>the net.
>It has to do with mendal, and population genetics"
I never said that.
>Isn't a *proof*.
>Give me the link of your *proof*.
>Let's see if it stands up to scrutiny.
>> >Evolution *cannot*.
>>
>> Make predictions? Of course it can. And it does.
>No it can't. & no it doesn't.
Assert all you want. You are entitled to your delusions.
And since you project them on us, we are entitled to note
that they *are* delusions.
>> >For example, evolution *cannot* predict wether say man will be
>> >smarter or dumber (like Ye Old One) in the future.
>>
>> That is true. Evolution makes no statements about individuals.
>> It also makes no statements about tomorrow's weather.
>And makes no predictions.
Not so. It just makes no prediction about individuals.
>> >There is *no* mathematical *proof* of evolution.
>>
>> In the sense of pure mathematics at this point, no.
>Yes. I know. Shame all the other numskies on T.O don't.
But Bill, you are a numbsky and we all know it. Remember
the Great Primes Fiasco?
wf3h
> On Apr 8, 1:10 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 11:59 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > failed predictions of creationism:
>
> > 1. There should be no transitional species.
>
> Wrong.
>
> *Any* design has transitional models.
meaningless. absent a mechanism there is no way to PREDICT this.
creationist failure.
>
> Show me 1 invention that isn't transitional.
god is supposed to be perfect. why does he need 'transitionals'?
and what is the mechanism that causes transitionals
IOW your creationist handwaving leads to failures....which we already
knew would happen
>
> > 2. There are most certainly no pre-human species.
>
> Wrong.
>
> *All* life is "pre-human". You should get out of bed earlier.
except creationists predict all life was created at the same time.
creationist failure 2
>
> > 3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the
> > chronological evolution of life.
>
> Wrong.
> Theres plenty of evidence showing the progressive work of a designer.
what is 'work'? you yourself are unable to use language without
invoking WORK which implies PROCESS which implies EVOLUTION
creationist failure 3.
>
> > 4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several,
> > having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.
>
> Wrong.
>
> You'll have to show me a bible verse. Can't remember reading that one.
i dont have to do that. your creationist pals have already done it.
creationist failure 4
>
> > 5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs
> > and humans) living together at the same time.
>
> Wrong.
yet that's what creationists say is the truth
ANOTHER failure
and as you can see YOUR view of creationism is a failure YOU can not
think of any way organisms come into being WITHOUT invoking evolution
so you admit creationism is wrong
thanks. i already knew that
[M]adman
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
> <sea...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> ...Howard himself has no mathematical model to support
>> his theory of the creative powers of the mechanism of random
>> mutations combined with natural selection - not at all. He himself
>> admits that the likelihood that his stories about how evolution
>> could have worked in the past are "not computable".
>
> OK, so now according to you we have no mathematical model
> for evolution (which has nevertheless been observed numerous
> times), and we never have had a mathematical model for
> creation, which has never been observed.
>
> So we must not exist, right?
>
Damn you guys are dumb.
[M]adman
Stop crying like a lil bitch
[M]adman
The one you will be sorry for because you do not believe in Him.
Bob Berger
Bill says...>> >On Apr 6, 7:17=A0am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 5, 10:27=A0pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>>
>> >> Yes, it is called population genetics.
>> >No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>> >Proof can make predictions.
>>
>> Well, it is a sort of prime number.
>>
>> I guess you enjoy redefining things because you think it
>> word has numerous related meanings in different fields.
>> In mathematics a proof of a statement is a demonstration
>> that it can be deduced from previously accepted statements
>
>
>In mathematics *proof* holds in all situations.
I suggest you review Godel's work on the subject of completeness and
consistency.
>13 is prime, I can prove it is, and I can predict 17 is the next
>prime.
That 17 is prime is not directly derivable from the "proven" fact that 13 is.
Either you are playing word games, or you are claiming that if N is the Xth
prime you have a linear method of correctly predicting which number is prime
X+1. If that is what you are claiming, please provide us with the details of
that method.
<SNIP>
pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu
And your EVIDENCE that all life does not fall into a nested hierarchy
is what again ?
Oh, right - your arrogant idiocy and incredulous misinterpretations of
valid science.
Are you going to wet yourself bellowing about 'chromosomes that
teleport around the animal kingdoms willy-nilly, making it impossible
to generate valid phylogenies' ?
Vastly overstate what the existence of rare, easily detected and
accounted for horizontal transfers show, then bellow that YOUR
ignorant opinions are more relevant than that of hundreds of
scientists that actually work in the field ?
Rummage through GenBank's EST database then scream that YOUR ignorant
delusions are more valid than the informed deductions of people that
actually know what they are talking about ?
>> On Apr 7, 11:59 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> failed predictions of creationism:
>> 1. There should be no transitional species.
> Wrong.
> *Any* design has transitional models.
> Show me 1 invention that isn't transitional.
According to standard creotard drivel, ALL lifeforms were created at
the same time; hence, there should be no transitional forms. Also,
according to standard creotard drivel, life is divided up into
ludicrous, undefined groups called 'kinds', and it is IMPOSSIBLE for
one population of critters to change from one 'kind' into another;
were this 'interpretation' of Genesis true, there could be no such
things as transitional forms. There should be no part fish/part
amphibian fossils, or no part reptile/part bird fossils.
Transitional forms exist; therefore, creotardism wrong.
You seem to have the silly delusion that living things are
MANUFACTURED ITEMS, created by a LIMITED being (every instance of
'design' is evidence against omnipotence, for why would a being that
can do anything NEED to resort to design or trial and error ?
Couldn't get it right the first time ? )
>> 2. There are most certainly no pre-human species.
> Wrong.
> *All* life is "pre-human". You should get out of bed earlier.
And you should at least TRY to not look like such a gibbering idiot.
According to standard creotardic drooling, humans were specially
created as they look now; there should never have been such things as
Neanderthals, or H erectus, or H habilis, etc. were simpleton
creotardism correct. Fossils of these hominids exist in direct
defiance of creotardic blubberings.
>> 3. There should be no evidence, whether in fossils or DNA, showing the
> chronological evolution of life.
> Wrong.
> Theres plenty of evidence showing the progressive work of a designer.
Only if your 'designer' works in ways indistinguishable from standard
evolution.
Or if you are willfully stupid, or incredulous, or deranged, or prefer
calling anything beyond your feeble comprehension the work of a
Magical Sky Pixie/Intelligent Designer/God/etc.
>> 4. There must surely be at least one species, and probably several,
>> having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.
> Wrong.
> You'll have to show me a bible verse. Can't remember reading that one.
According to standard creotardic 'interpretations' of Genesis, all
species were specially created seperately. There is no a priori
reason WHY there should be any genetic similarities between any
species at all.
Examination of REALITY shows there is a nested hierarchy of genetic
similarities, so most sane and rational people accept the validity of
the ToE; you, on the other hand, merely shove your head further up
your own arse and start howling about unknowable designers.
>> 5. The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs
>> and humans) living together at the same time.
> Wrong.
Based on what, exactly ? Your say-so ?
According to standard YEC bleatings, the Earth is only 6-10,000 years
old, and all things lived together at the same time, with the fossil
record being 'explained' by the Great Flood. That idea shown wrong
centuries ago.
Stuart
Really?
Point out where.
Stuart
Pandeism Fish
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suppose it depends what presumption you're operating from -- if you
begin with the premise that copying error exists, then it is the
possibility that all copying error will be eliminated that can
approach, but never reach, zero.... if you begin with the premise that
copying error may or may not occur (even with the probability of it
never occurring being vanishingly small), then you can never eliminate
the minute possibility of no copying error occuring -- but we know as
a matter of scientific fact that copying error does occur!!
Pandeism Fish
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> heekster wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:46:14 -0500, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>PandeismFish wrote:
> >>>>>>> It seems to me that the fundamental propositions of evolution by
> >>>>>>> natural selection are susceptible to mathematical
> >>>>>>> formulation.... the first fundamental proposition is:
>
> >>>>>> There is no evolution in the first place.
>
> >>>>> Wrong answer.
>
> >>>>>> A population of fish can not give rise to a population of humans.
>
> >>>>> "In addition, direct comparisons of the fish DNA with the human
> >>>>> DNA show that more human genes will be found by comparing fish
> >>>>> with man. In this way, the pufferfish sequence is helping to find
> >>>>> previously undiscovered features in the human genome sequence--a
> >>>>> process often compared to the decipherment of the Rosetta stone."
> >>>>>http://www.jgi.doe.gov/News/news_7_25_02.html
>
> >>>> Common design moron.
>
> >>> Of course you are.
>
> >>>>>> period.
>
> >>>>> Take a Midol, bitch.
>
> >>>> Bite me
>
> >>> Go find a gator or a cottonmouth, you sick little monkey.
>
> >> *I* did not evolve from a monkey. THAT would be you
>
> > Which of the many gods told you that?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
If being an arrogant ass such as yourself is the kind of behavior that
God accepts, then he must have pretty low standards, and thus I am not
concerned with being punished for not believing in your lowbrow God....
Bill
> In article <4887ce2c-75cc-4c0d-948f-9ed146f30...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill says...
> >13 is prime, I can prove it is, and I can predict 17 is the next
> >prime.
>
> That 17 is prime is not directly derivable from the "proven" fact that 13 is.
>
> Either you are playing word games, or you are claiming that if N is the Xth
> prime you have a linear method of correctly predicting which number is prime
> X+1. If that is what you are claiming, please provide us with the details of
> that method.
1 + (2/3) * 3 = 5
2 + (1/3) * 3 = 7
3 + (2/3) * 3 = 11
4 + (1/3) * 3 = 13
I predict
5 + (2/3) * 3 = 17
Wow. I was right.
10000037 / 3 + (2/3)), *3 = next
Pseudoprimes need filtering.
Bill
> On Apr 7, 9:06 pm, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 12:43 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 11:59 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
> > > if evolution is true, then all life should
> > > result in a nested hierarchy.
>
> > Exactly.
>
> > *ALL* life *does not* fall into a "nested Hierarchy", you just
> > falsified your own theory.
>
> > Congratulations.
>
> And your EVIDENCE that all life does not fall into a nested hierarchy
> is what again ?
Hmm, let me see.
I know you don't consider bacteria life, but saldy you'r wrong.
> Oh, right - your arrogant idiocy and incredulous misinterpretations of
> valid science.
If you understood science, You would know *all* life does not fall
into a nested hierarchy.
You'r wrong. I'm right, so was wf3h (for once) and he falsified his
own mathematically
*unproven* *theory* of evolution.
> >> failed predictions of creationism:
> >> 1. There should be no transitional species.
> > Wrong.
> > *Any* design has transitional models.
> > Show me 1 invention that isn't transitional.
<snip> drivel & non-example of transitional inventions.
> According to standard YEC bleatings, the Earth is only 6-10,000 years
> old,
More fool them.
Bill
Which one?
Matt Silberstein
<spint...@hotmail.com> in
<4887ce2c-75cc-4c0d...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 7, 10:56 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>> >Evolution *cannot*.
>>
>> Make predictions? Of course it can. And it does.
>
>
>No it can't. & no it doesn't.
Based on evolution theory I predict that the organisms on an island
near a larger body of land will have similar organisms to that larger
body. I predict that we will find smaller versions of those organisms,
that we will find flightless versions of flying organisms from the
larger body.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Michael Siemon
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> rno...@umich.edu <rno...@umich.edu> wrote:
...
> > Yes, it is called population genetics. It can get quite technical
> > mathematically. Basically, the development of this mathematical
> > theory is what convinced people that Mendel's genetics was the
> > machinery behind Darwin's evolution. That is the so-called "modern
> > synthesis" which is now more than a half century old.
>
> One can find these mathematical propositions of evolution here:
>
> Michod, Richard E. 1999. Darwinian dynamics: evolutionary transitions in
> fitness and individuality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
I'd be interested in comments/reviews of this by those who work more
directly with mathematical models in evolution/biology than John's
philosophical expertise. I've been "sampling" this book (via the
Amazon "Surprise me" quasi-random display of a few pages at a time),
and there is _very_ little math, and a whole hell of a lot of
"discussion" of the _results_ of mathematical modeling. The snippets
from the appendices seem to have more substance, but the main text
leaves me feeling seriously frustrated. There are these graphs, and
a few equations/formulas, and statements by the author about the
implications -- and I am guessing that reference to the author's
(and his collaborators') papers would indeed fill in much of what
I am missing in this text, but my initial impulse to just buy it
and plow through it is being seriously undermined. I _am_ seriously
interested in the discussion, as it relates to the organization of
higher levels of natural selection (from pre-genetic, to genes,
cells and organisms). But in what I've been able to read in the
sampling, there are a few equations and figures, and "philosophical"
discussion of these, but little in the way of actual mathematical
reasoning displayed.
Help?
Bill
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:32:50 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Bill
> <4887ce2c-75cc-4c0d-948f-9ed146f30...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 7, 10:56 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >Evolution *cannot*.
>
> >> Make predictions? Of course it can. And it does.
>
> >No it can't. & no it doesn't.
>
> Based on evolution theory I predict that the organisms on an island
> near a larger body of land will have similar organisms to that larger
> body.
I could tell you that and i'm not an athiest.
> I predict that we will find smaller versions of those organisms,
> that we will find flightless versions of flying organisms from the
> larger body.
And those may or may not come true.
You'r missing the point.
Some guy asked if evolution can be proven mathematically. It can't and
it isn't.
I could predict that "the hypotenuse will be longer than the adjacent,
yet shorter than
the opposite & adjacent together".
But that's not proof.
I could say;
"the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
the adjacent & opposite"
But that's not proof.
John S. Wilkins
I'd be very interested to see others' comments too. Michod was
recommended to me by Larry Moran, I think, but he does tend to do the
"science by simulation" thing; not that there's anything wrong with
that. Simulations show that outcomes from initial conditions follow if
nothing else gets in the way - so they are explanatory when that is the
case; but I do worry that the outcomes are connected to realworld
outcomes by "it looks like it".
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Matt Silberstein
<spint...@hotmail.com> in
<091ec4cb-d042-413b...@21g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On 8 Apr, 04:42, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:32:50 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Bill
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com> in
>> <4887ce2c-75cc-4c0d-948f-9ed146f30...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 7, 10:56 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >> Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> >Evolution *cannot*.
>>
>> >> Make predictions? Of course it can. And it does.
>>
>> >No it can't. & no it doesn't.
>>
>> Based on evolution theory I predict that the organisms on an island
>> near a larger body of land will have similar organisms to that larger
>> body.
>
>
>I could tell you that and i'm not an athiest.
What is the reason for that? What model do you have that produces that
as a prediction and why?
>> I predict that we will find smaller versions of those organisms,
>> that we will find flightless versions of flying organisms from the
>> larger body.
>
>
>And those may or may not come true.
>You'r missing the point.
No, I am not. It is a prediction of evolution, which you asked for.
>Some guy asked if evolution can be proven mathematically.
Evolution is a scientific theory, scientific theories are not proven
mathematically.
>It can't and
>it isn't.
>
>
>I could predict that "the hypotenuse will be longer than the adjacent,
>yet shorter than
>the opposite & adjacent together".
>But that's not proof.
It is silly. You can make "predictions" in math, but that is not one
of them.
>I could say;
>
>"the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
>the adjacent & opposite"
>
>But that's not proof.
You can say lots of things that are not proof. But you said there were
no predictions in evolution and that was wrong.
rno...@umich.edu
> In article <1ixrfp2.1ealgb6nlgciN%j...@wilkins.id.au>,
> j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
I am not familiar with that particular book. But if you want math,
start with Ewen's lecture notes on Mathematical Population Genetics at
http://www.math.cornell.edu/~durrett/CPSS2006/cornelllect.pdf
And look up "Mathematical Methods of Population Genetics" at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/mathmpg.html
The book "Theoretical Aspects of Population Genetics" by Kimura and
Ohta is now quite old, by I recall it to be rather advanced
mathematics.
"Theoretical Population Genetics" by JS Gale or "Mathematical
Population Genetics: Theoretical introduction" by Warren Ewens are
more up to date, but Kimura and Ohta is the one that I read years ago.
rno...@umich.edu
"Replication error rate is about 1 in 109, so >99.5% of
the time the whole E. coli genome can be copied
without error."
http://compbio.uchsc.edu/Hunter/bio5099/lecture-notes/10-08.pdf
Garamond Lethe
The textbook I'm using (or rather, is being used on me) has had most of
the math sucked out of it and hidden away in the two chapters that are
available online. Have a look here:
http://www.evolution-textbook.org/content/free/contents/ch28.html
This is intended to be an introductory text: you're not going to see any
of the math developed in depth, but most of the important models will at
least be mentioned. And hey, it's free.
Michael Siemon
Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Heh, heh; the typical American abhorence of mathematicizing... :-)
I can, of course, just hit the standard pop. gen. sources, but the
thrust of the Michod book is _seriously_ interesting, and deals with
issues of _levels_ of selection that are not (AFIAK) treated in the
standard texts -- it's his particular specialty. I _like_ the kind
of thing that the "discussion of the results" of his models deals with.
I just would like to be better armed to work through the modeling on
my own (though, being lazy, I'm not likely to do very much of that...)
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> What is the probability of an organism reproducing with no copying error
> at all (essentially a clone of the parent)? What is the probability of
> this happening over successive generations?
Let's assume asexual haploid reproduction with a genome of 10^6
nucleotides. The standard DNA mutation rate is ~1 change per 10^9
nucleotides per replication. So let's do some math.
What's the chance of a single nucleotide *not* changing?
999999999/1000000000. Given two nucleotides, what's the probability that
neither one nor the other changes? (999999999/1000000000)^2. What's the
probability that you end up with a perfect clone? (999999999/1000000000)^
(10^6), or 99.90005% (if R isn't introducing too many roundoff errors).
Ten clones in a row? 99.00498%
One hundred clones in a row? 90.48374%
One thousand clones in a row? 36.78795%
Ten thousand clones in a row? 0.004539994%
Also keep in mind that 10^12 cells for 20,000 generations is doable in
one person's lifetime (I'm specifically thinking of Lenski's work in E.
Coli).
Warning: I'm just learning this stuff myself and have been known to make
silly math errors before.
Garamond Lethe
> "Replication error rate is about 1 in 109, so >99.5% of the time the
> whole E. coli genome can be copied without error."
> http://compbio.uchsc.edu/Hunter/bio5099/lecture-notes/10-08.pdf
Cut 'n' paste error there: it's 10^9, of course.
Garamond Lethe
> On Apr 7, 8:53 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> "PandeismFish" <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you have a clump of one-celled creatures living on some planet, and
>> they are the only life on that planet, and they are capable of self-
>> replicating, they will do one of two things: die out or evolve; there
>> is no third option of true stasis (every generation going forward
>> continues to be a carbon copy of those past).... [snip]
>>
>> Why do you say that stasis is not an option? It certainly seems to be
>> a logical possibility to me. As long as the flow of nutrients
>> continues.
>
> A superficial appearance of stasis may be an option, for a period, but
> that does not mean that the organism in question is in a true stasis --
> i.e., every generation is a carbon copy of the past, and any copying
> errors are immediately selected against.... horseshoe crabs have been
> around for hundreds of millions of years, and have looked pretty much
> the same for the whole span of it, but only recently has it been
> determined that on a very subtle level, they have undergone evolutionary
> change at a faster rate than most living things!!
If you want to annoy a biologist (perish the thought), point out that
evolution is an algorithm and biology is just an interesting
implementation. If you're working in much simpler worlds (that can, say,
fit inside a computer) then true stasis is not only possible, it's often
hard to avoid.
Bob Berger
Bill says...
>Pseudoprimes need filtering.
Pseudoprimes are the reason your "predictive" method fails the generality
requirement. It, for example, predicts that 25 is a prime: (8+(1/3))*3=25; so an
independent test (filtering) must be performed to verify that each predicted
value actually is a prime.
Thus it does not directly follow that since (4+(1/3))*3 or 13 is a prime, then
(5+(2/3))*3) or 17 is therefore the next prime; not without independent
verification.
Now, I could counter that next primes can also be predicted using (2n + 1) where
n is an interger:
2(1) + 1 = 3
2(2) + 1 = 5
2(3) + 1 = 7
2(4) + 1 = 9 (rejected based on "filtering")
2(5) + 1 = 11
2(6) + 1 = 13
2(7) + 1 = 15
So, my method predicts the next prime after 13 is 15, which independent
verification shows to be wrong; but my method makes no more false predictions
over the entire range of n than yours does, and at least mine gets 3 right.
Bill
First I seen is "a perfect clone" is 1/1.
Bill
> In article <1b114984-a48b-4ad8-b2fa-ff9bcdf32...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your method didn't fail. You just didn't finish.
2(1) + 1 = 3
2(2) + 1 = 5
2(3) + 1 = 7
2(4) + 1 = 9 (rejected based on "filtering")
2(5) + 1 = 11
2(6) + 1 = 13
2(7) + 1 = 15(rejected based on "filtering")
My method didn't fail either & is slightly more efficient than
your's.
A filter is *not* a failure.
So long as you can *proof*, which ones to filter next. I can.
Bill
Second one I seen, is the math is similar to the "infinite monkey
theorem"
which was falsified by myself.
3rd one I see, Is this model doesn't take into account 2 parents.
Which filters lot's of errors, over time.
There's some more, but that's it for now.
Bill
> In article <1b114984-a48b-4ad8-b2fa-ff9bcdf32...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> and at least mine gets 3 right.
2(0) + 1 = 2 (you forgot this one)
2(1) + 1 = 3
2(2) + 1 = 5
2(3) + 1 = 7
2(4) + 1 = 9 (rejected based on "filtering")
2(5) + 1 = 11
2(6) + 1 = 13
2(7) + 1 = 15 (rejected based on "filtering")
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 7, 4:29 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 10:19 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 6, 7:17 am, "rnor...@umich.edu" <rnor...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Apr 5, 10:27 pm, Pandeism Fish <knujonmap...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution? Options
>>
>> > > Yes, it is called population genetics.
>>
>> > No. "Population Genetics" is observation.
>>
>> > Proof can make predictions.
>>
>> > Evolution *cannot*.
>>
>> evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
>
>
>No a nested hierarchy is an observation.
The observation confirms the prediction.
[snip more of Spincronic's usual brand of stupidity.]
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 8, 12:43 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 7, 11:59 am, Bill <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > > evolution predicts a nested hierachy.
>>
>> > No a nested hierarchy is an observation.
>>
>> it is also a prediction. if evolution is true, then all life should
>> result in a nested hierarchy.
>
>Exactly.
>
>*ALL* life *does not* fall into a "nested Hierarchy",
Find some that doesn't.
>you just
>falsified your own theory.
>
>Congratulations.
--
Bob.