Mathematics and evolution?

[becomingagodo]

Radrook said he doesn't believe in evolution because it is not logical. However, is their anything mathematically saying evolution is impossible.

Again, logically speaking it would be less logical to assume a creator since you would have to deal with the first cause paradox i.e. who created god? a theist would say he is allpowerful, however that leads to the all powerful paradox.

Evolution fits better with logic as I don't see how it contradicts brances of mathematics like statistics and chaos theory. A common argument against evolution is that randomness cannot produce complexity, however as shown by mathematics like the game of life and chaos theory this is not the case.

Lastly, even if Evolution does not seem logical, why then would it make it false? If it has evidence then we should really be looking to redifine what is logical like Quantum mechanics, that seems really unlogical.

[mijopaalmc]

The most basic problem with the way that creationists address the mathematical aspect of evolution by natural selection is that it completely disregards the natural selection part of the processes, which biases survival toward better adapted individuals.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not only can no one come up with a logical argument against evolution, but here is a logical argument in favor of it (emphasis mine):


The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.


~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

The interesting thing about evolution is that it favors the individual as well as the society in which the individual lives. It's the ultimate "win-win" situation.

Why are males so eager to spread their seed around? Because it increases their chances of passing on their genes to the next generations. More choices, better opportunities to pass on better properties.

You may not "survive" in full, but just a teeny part of you "surviving" is a hell of a lot better than none of you "surviving" at all.

Dive into the genetic pool! It pays - for you, personally - to increase diversity!

[slyjoe]

Radrook said he doesn't believe in evolution because it is not logical. However, is their anything mathematically saying evolution is impossible.

...snip

He also claims evolution fails by what is defined as mathematical impossibility. I'm still waiting on that defintion.

[mijopaalmc]

He also claims evolution fails by what is defined as mathematical impossibility. I'm still waiting on that defintion.

Something like this (http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/data3.html):

The simulated abiogenesis of the proteins to mock-up the simplest original cell is more than a zillion (>104,000,0000, 1 followed by more than 4,000,000 zeros) times more impossible than the mathematical definition of impossible.

Who knew that "a zillion" was a real mathematical term?:rolleyes:

[slyjoe]

That's the quote I was thinking of - at least you weren't as lazy as I was to go look it up.:blush:

[fuelair]

The most basic problem with the way that creationists address the mathematical aspect of evolution by natural selection is that it completely disregards the natural selection part of the processes, which biases survival toward better adapted individuals.


My rule is reality always slam-dunks philosophy.

[MinorityView]

The most basic problem with the way that creationists address the mathematical aspect of evolution by natural selection is that it completely disregards the natural selection part of the processes, which biases survival toward better adapted individuals.

Can you point me to an example of how this can be calculated mathematically? I mean, how natural selection changes the odds, so that new species can emerge, and so on?

It sounds good...

[Dr Adequate]

Can you point me to an example of how this can be calculated mathematically? I mean, how natural selection changes the odds? Well, you can just simulate it.

Have a look at the SW article on Genetic Drift, section 3.

[Complexity]

The interesting thing about evolution is that it favors the individual as well as the society in which the individual lives. It's the ultimate "win-win" situation.

Why are males so eager to spread their seed around? Because it increases their chances of passing on their genes to the next generations. More choices, better opportunities to pass on better properties.

You may not "survive" in full, but just a teeny part of you "surviving" is a hell of a lot better than none of you "surviving" at all.

Dive into the genetic pool! It pays - for you, personally - to increase diversity!


Even if you don't have children, future generations are likely to receive a great many of your genes.

For example, I am gay. I have no children. My brother and sister have, between them, seven children. My nephews and nieces have as much in common with me (one-fourth) as my grandchildren would have.

[MinorityView]

Well, you can just simulate it.

Have a look at the SW article on Genetic Drift, section 3.


Well, that is helpful. Thank you.

However, the other piece is the likelihood of mutations in the first place. Given that even usable mutations have only a slight likelihood of becoming established (according to the article you kindly supplied), how many mutations are needed to result in a certain level of change over time? Do mutations actually occur at a predictable rate? Does the rate fit the results?

I'm having a bit of trouble laying out the question, so if you don't get it, just say so and I'll try again. Thanks!