A Mathematician's View of Evolution

The Mathematical Intelligencer ^ | Granville Sewell

[Last Visible Dog]

The top speed of animals is irrelevant to whether a man could outrun them. A human can run continuously for thirty miles. Any fur covered animal will overheat. On the plains of Africa, a human can run down almost anything he is likely to want to catch.

This may seem like a pedant debate - but I really have an issue with this statement. Maybe I am wrong but with my current data this statement doesn't sound correct. I am not trying to be a pain - I was concede if you show me I am wrong.

Wolves stalk their prey - the first time the prey realizes the wolf is there, the wolf is somewhat near - no more than 300 feet (guessing). A wolf can sprint at 40 MPH for say two minutes and then it can run at 7 MPH for as much 7 hours (I got that from a link). Man can run say 18 MPH for a long time. The wolf is going to over take the man in the first few minutes. (math is not my strong subject so maybe I am miscalculating - or not calculating at all)

[ahayes]

Our running ability is useful for running things down, not for getting away from things.

[ahayes]

What is your point?

After reading that post I am really confused what yours could be!

[ahayes]

An interesting probability model that you may find interesting is calculating the probability of trying to assemble life from non-life purely by chance and natural process:

All the calculations in the world are useless if you're not asking the right question. Their calculations assume that an enzyme or bacterium springs fully formed from the forehead of Zeus, when in actuality nothing of the sort happened.

[metmom]

Our running ability is useful for running things down, not for getting away from things.

Why run something down when you can lie in wait for it? It would seem that for survival, the ability to run faster than the thing that's chasing you to eat you would be more critical than running down prey.

Why expend that kind of energy for that long when there are far easier things to find and eat that don't require that kind of energy output. I cannot imagine that some pre-human is going to chase things for those kind of long distances anyway. They'd be getting too far from home.

So what would the evolutionary advantage be to be able to outrun ANY creature for those kind of long distances?

[FreedomProtector]

"Given the incredible improbability of life arriving from non-life.....do you really believe that life as we observe it today came to be by chance and natural process, and you are willing to base your life on that belief?

I'm not willing to limit my definition to a couple of phrases, but basically, yes. I find Pascal's wager morally loathsome. Any deity that operated on that principle would be morally indistinguishable from Satan."


Although Pascal's wager is relevant, asking whether or not one will make a life choices based the probability of something is true is not equivalent to Pascal's wager. Would you walk across a bridge that has a 99% chance (probability of random generation of even a single protein is much much lower even given your suggested ridiculously long three billion years.....much less spontaneous generation....one method of calculation below) of failing down is not equivalent to:

God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.


We make choices based on the probability of something being likely or likely true all the time....engineers, actuaries, scientists etc. This is not equivalent to Pascals wager: Your only chance of winning eternal happiness is believing, and your only chance of losing is not believing. Pascal's wager is not asking the question whether or not something is likely or likely true, merely the consequences of being wrong.

Given your belief that matter is all there is Darwinian worldview, what is your source of ethics that makes you 'find Pascal's wager morally loathsome' (other then your presuppositions are hostile to 'God')?


"Your criticism of Avida and evolutionary algorithms is rather beside the point."

The criticism was not directed at evolutionary algorithms-- a particular stochastic method of machine learning. In fact, I use stochastic methods frequently. The criticism was directed at the fallacy of a carefully designed algorithm somehow proving that that the world has come to be by chance and natural process.




Calculations of Bradley and Thaxton for random production of a single protein.

Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton calculated the probability of a random formation of amino acids into a protein to be 4.9 x 10-191. They began with the assumption that the probability of starting with an L-amino acid was .5, and the probability of starting with an L-amino acid was .5, and the probability of two L-amino acids joining with a peptide bond was also .5. They assumed that the twenty necessary amino acids existed in equal concentration in the prebiotic soup so that the probability of the right amino acid in the required position was .05.
Bradley and Thaxton were also generous towards the proponents of random processes when they also assumed that all of the chemical reactions would be with amino acids, ignoring the high probability of reactions with non-amino acid chemicals. They calculated the probability of the necessary placement of one amino acid to be .5 x .5 x .05 or .125. This, of coarse, meant that the probability of assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 x .0125 for N terms. Assuming a protein with 100 amino acids (.0125 x .0125 for 100 terms ), the mathematically impossible probability would be 4.9 x 10-191.
Bradley and Thaxton noted their agreement with Hubert P. Yockey and concluded that even assuming that all the carbon on earth existed in the form of amino acids and reacted at the greatest possible rate of 1012/s for one billion years (when actually only 130 million years were available), the mathematically impossible probability for the formation of one functional protein would be 10^-65.

Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton, “Information and the Origin of Life” in The Creation Hypothesis, ed. J. P. Moreland (Downers Grove, Il : InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 190

[ahayes]

Why don't you go ask all of the creatures that chase down their prey and also are slower than some other predator?

[metmom]

So what would the evolutionary advantage be to be able to outrun ANY creature for those kind of long distances?

What? Don't the evolutionists have the answer to that one that I have to be sent off packing to ask an animal?

[FreedomProtector]

"All the calculations in the world are useless if you're not asking the right question."

The question: What is the probability of life arriving solely by chance and natural process? is the right question. It is the crux of the issue.


a) Calculations of Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe for random generation of a simple enzyme and calculations for a single celled bacterium.

Although he is an evolutionist, and an atheist, Hoyle sees the mathematical statistical difficulty in producing a single bacterium like E. coli. In his calculations of the probability of life emerging from chance interactions with chemicals, Hoyle assumed that the first living cell was much simpler than today’s bacteria. However, his calculation for the likelihood of even one very simple enzyme arising at the right time in the right place was only chance in 10^(20). Because there are thousands of different enzymes with different functions, to produce the simplest living cell, Hoyle calculated that about 2,000 enzymes were needed with each one performing a specific task to form a single bacterium lie E coli.

No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have a random beginning….there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court….the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems….cannot in out view be generated by what are often called “natural” processes, …For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly…There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago.
-Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Other calculation models posted here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689062/posts?page=185#185

[ConservativeDude]

Um, I think if you were patient enough to read my entire post, you would see that that was sarcasm......

[ConservativeDude]

Ah....and I posted my correction without reading your next post.....a lesson for us all!

[Last Visible Dog]

Our running ability is useful for running things down, not for getting away from things.

Then the numbers are even worse - the overwhelming sprint speed advantage of four legged mammals would mean man is not going to run down much.

[Last Visible Dog]

After reading that post I am really confused what yours could be!

?

You don't make much sense

[FreedomProtector]

"$1,000,000 reward to the first evolutionist to get life to evolve from any sort of primordial soup in a reproducible fashion."


This is actually real.....Evolutionists have a $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can explain spontaneous generation by chance and natural processes...The Orgin-of-Life prize. Spontaneous generation is monumental problem for the evolutionist. The evolutionist has to accept it by faith, despite its incredibly low probability.


http://www.us.net/life/index.htm

The website is actually fairly interesting, and provides an interesting list of issues references, judges, etc...

One part that is particularly funny....

"Other than announcements in scientific journals, The Prize will not be publicly advertised in lay media. The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. wishes to keep the project as quiet as possible within the scientific community. No media interviews will be granted until after the Prize is won."

[js1138]

This may seem like a pedant debate

I suppose if repeating arguments I've already conceded or excluded could be called pedantry. Among other things, I started by conceding that many animals could outsprint a human.

No would you like to consider the situation where the human is chasing the prey, and the prey is not a carnivore, or not chasing the human?

[ahayes]

They sprint and widen the range rapidly, we just keep jogging after them. We can keep up a moderate pace for longer than they can continue running away. One day of work yields thousands of calories--pretty good payback for the outlay. Perhaps this will help to clarify things.

Our ability to cover a lot of ground at a steady pace is also useful for foraging as well as for hunting.

[ahayes]

That's what I think about you. Glad we are of one mind.

[js1138]

Then the numbers are even worse - the overwhelming sprint speed advantage of four legged mammals would mean man is not going to run down much.

You are assuming a prey animal can keep up a sprint speed over a long distance in the summer heat. They can't. A typical human jogger can kill his pet dog by overheating it.

[FreedomProtector]

"'As far as you know, is there a compelling mathematical argument in support of macro-evolution?'

Yes. (1 + µ)n ~ 1 only if µ=0 (micorevolution does not exist) and/or n is small (young Earth). If you accept microevolution and an old Earth, macroevolution is inescapable."


Random formation of even a single protein is mathematically highly improbable even if n is ridiculously large (one billion years). Spontaneous generation is much, much less probable. Faith in the highly improbable is inescapable for those with the presupposition of "matter is all there is".


c) Calculations of Bradley and Thaxton for random production of a single protein.

Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton calculated the probability of a random formation of amino acids into a protein to be 4.9 x 10-191. They began with the assumption that the probability of starting with an L-amino acid was .5, and the probability of starting with an L-amino acid was .5, and the probability of two L-amino acids joining with a peptide bond was also .5. They assumed that the twenty necessary amino acids existed in equal concentration in the prebiotic soup so that the probability of the right amino acid in the required position was .05.
Bradley and Thaxton were also generous towards the proponents of random processes when they also assumed that all of the chemical reactions would be with amino acids, ignoring the high probability of reactions with non-amino acid chemicals. They calculated the probability of the necessary placement of one amino acid to be .5 x .5 x .05 or .125. This, of coarse, meant that the probability of assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 x .0125 for N terms. Assuming a protein with 100 amino acids (.0125 x .0125 for 100 terms ), the mathematically impossible probability would be 4.9 x 10-191.
Bradley and Thaxton noted their agreement with Hubert P. Yockey and concluded that even assuming that all the carbon on earth existed in the form of amino acids and reacted at the greatest possible rate of 1012/s for one billion years (when actually only 130 million years were available), the mathematically impossible probability for the formation of one functional protein would be 10^-65.

other probability models posted here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689062/posts?page=185#185

a) Calculations of Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe for random generation of a simple enzyme and calculations for a single celled bacterium
b) Calculations of Hubert Yockey for random generation of a single molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c protein.
c) Calculations of Bradley and Thaxton for random production of a single protein.
d) Calculations of Harold Morowitz for single celled bacterium developing from accidental or chance processes.
e) Calculations of Bernd-Olaf Kuppers for the random generation of the sequence of a bacterium.

[FreedomProtector]

"Now if you can get the Sun to shine on the fieldstone pile in my backyard and assemble it into that wall I've been meaning to build, you will have thoroughly destroyed Sewell's hypothesis."

..gotta add the random changes and evalution via a stochastic fitness algorithm to this....: )

...that will save me so much work and sore muscles.... I will go and build a fire in my backyard tonight. I have a pile of concrete blocks that I have been meaning to assemble into a wall for some time. The light and heat from the fire will surely assemble the blocks into a wall given enough time. Oh wait..if I get some dynamite and make a big bang in my backyard it will assemble the wall even faster......To wall to build even faster I will iteratively make random changes via a sledge hammer to the blocks and evaluate the blocks based on fitness via a (designed) stochastic algorithm. I will reproduce the blocks most fit for building a wall via (designed) molds, then apply energy via fire, sunlight, and dynamite so the blocks will assemble themselves into a wall. Given enough time, enough fire, and enough random changes via dynamite and sledge hammers, I will have assembled the wall....you saved me so much work I thought that I was going to have to actually design the wall by stacking the blocks in order....