|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hoyle's Mathmatics of Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
Hello All,
I will state right off that my knowledge of population genetics is pretty scant. But I've run across a review of Hoyle's book, "Mathmatics of Evolution", and part of it has caught my eye and interest:
quote: Now I think I'll go out on a limb and state that I'm pessimistic right off the bat of Hoyle's calculations, though I'm a bit unsure. It also seems apparent that Hoyle, or rather the reviewer, is contesting the notion of natural selection positively selecting "beneficial" mutations when the likelihood of such mutations is so small compared to non-beneficial ones (neutral or deleterious). In reading about mutations here and elsewhere, this seems to be incorrect reasoning. But my question is, how can we decisively demonstrate that positive selection of beneficial mutations is occurring, in the midst of all these detrimental or neutral mutations? Is there any empirical, laboratory evidence of such? And feel free to rip and criticize this reviewer or Hoyle's arguments if necessary. Thanks for the help!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's my understanding that they proved that all functional proteins are connected by single amino-substitution steps, but I don't know how this was proved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
let me start off by pointing out that whenever there has been a significant disagreement between math and reality, reality has won.
take the (legend?) story of the engineer that calculated that bees cannot fly. this story is humorous to most people because it shows how 'stupid' those engineers are, because he is obviously mistaken. what is usually determined is that an assumption was in error or some other mistake or ommission was made in the mathematical model or that what is being modeled is not accurate. math can help you find solutions but they are not THE solutions. One thing is clear, regardless of the calculations, evolution is occuring and has occured. The bee flies. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
PV = nRT is another example of how mathematical models do not fit the reality.
Proof that girls are evil. We know that girls require time and money.girls = time X money We know that time is money, right?Time = money Girls = money2 According to a great philosopher, money is the root of all evil.Money = Öevil Girls = (Öevil)2 = evil Therefore, we are forced to conclude that girls are evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
take the (legend?) story of the engineer that calculated that bees cannot fly. this story is humorous to most people because it shows how 'stupid' those engineers are, because he is obviously mistaken. Off topic, I know, but I cannot let this one fly... what actually happened was the engineer demonstrated that Bees could not fly according to the understood principles of how planes fly and thus concluded that bees use a different method of flight. Good science. Good use of maths. I actually took a course on the Mathematics of Evolution while at University, I don't recall having covered what Hoyle is talking about but I'd be willing to bet many shiny pennies that his Model does not match up to the reality of how evolutionary theory predicts things happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Jack, elite evos use a real dodge often enough, "small diffusive effects" to get around the imbroglio. It is a stumbling block even to evoLUtionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I know, but everyone knows the urban legend version.
and notice how, either way, this shows that the model was not correct ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
because there is no real "ideal gas" just some that come close, so it is an indicator of general trend of behavior but not an absolute model.
I think you find that in every mathematical model: it has to be an absolute answer for the math, but reality has to many little random elements to be that precise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
Thanks for these answers. In large part I agree with your statements about math attempting to prove (or I suppose in some cases like IDers - disprove) evolution, only to come up short.
I think the crux of my problem, however, is a bit two-fold, and admittedly they both stem from either a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge in the fields of math and evolutionary biology. So here is my central question that I'm trying to relate to in reading this Hoyle review - We have plenty of evidence of the so-called "microevolution", and creationists are going to continue to deny "macroevolution", at least on a larger scale of changes. They may agree that reproductive isolation creates species changes eventually, which ironically is macroevolution (or speciation) defined, but they do not accept such accumulation over longer periods of time. So when I start reading folks like Hoyle, whom many IDers will borrow concepts from (among others), they will demonstrate mathematically just how highly improbable it is to have so many phenotypical accumulations giving rise to such biological diversity. Now in my gut I feel they're doing two things wrong: 1. Misunderstanding (sometimes deliberately) biological mutation and natural selection 2. Failing to take into account other factors such as PE, and so on. I believe I can demonstrate #1 pretty well. But #2 is where I'm having a bit of difficulty - am I wrong about other factors playing a role in the so called "macroevolutionary" process? If so, how could I explain this a bit better? I've always been under the assumption that the primary role involved is slow-gradual steps. How about horizontal gene transfer, or cascade genes? Sorry if it sounds like I'm taking shots in the dark - as I mentioned my knowledge on this is a bit limited. Thanks again for any help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Well, in a way, every gas is an ideal gas. However, what makes the ideal gas law not completely accurate is that we have to assume that there is no friction between the gas molecules and that energy is constant within the specific volume of space we are talking about. Neither of these are true because there is no true frictionless space and there is no true closed system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
...and thus not only is a tissue not that ideal, even if decomposed into constituent gas molecules by rasing temps but FORM itself has a causal role not contained thereat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The answer to me has always been that Macro = (N)x(Micro) ... it is just a matter of degree. And the proof to me is in the genetics, where the differences in genes between phylum are the same kind of differences as those seen between species, only more of them.
There waw a thread on this a little while back that got some interesting information into it.{{"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?}} http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Most anti-Darwinians, when using math, utilize strawman arguments, and this is usually quite obvious. For example, Hoyle's original 'impossibility calculations' (the so-called tornado in a junkyard scenarios) were totally irrelevant as he calculated the odds of all things happening at once - that is, for example, a complete functioning cell popping out of its constituent molecules in one fell swoop.
Of course that is impossible. It is also wildly misrepresenting evolutionary theory. Dembski has done the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
What 'imbroglio' is that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024