"A Mathematician's View of Evolution"

[Grimoire]

Bump.

Instead of bumping, why don't you contribute to the discussion? You can start by addressing the article I linked to. Not being a statistician, I may not be fully understanding some of the points he makes.

Is there anything in that article that was incorrect, or do you find all of the points to be valid?

 

[CapelDodger]

Brodski, you should email the author or write a counter-article.

You should give it up. Whatever you're doing you really should give it up. It's stereotypic behaviour, you have to break out of it. I quote the fourth post of a thread you started. The OP had "interesting" in it. Sterotypic behaviour. Whatever it is you're seeking as an out, you're not finding it on the JREF Forums. For your own good, look elsewhere. The Forums have become part of your problem.

 

[Mojo]

"Please discuss the article"

 

[lenny]

"Please discuss the article"

Jason Rosenhouse, How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics
The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001. pp. 3-8.

the points seem pretty standard, although the writing is a bit loose for a mathematician. and the extent to which the results are restricted to the particular mathematical models used is not always made clear. and he has a slightly odd (or wildly inappropriate for evolution) notion of a Markov chain.

Of course he spins one insult rather badly on page 2

"armchair philosophers believing they can refute in a day waht thousands of scientists have built up over the course of a century."

the strength of science is that "armchair philosophers" really could refute a century's work, with one deep insight or effective suggestion of a devistating experiment. but it seems that has not happened yet. and the abuse of mathematics he notes seem to be made with malice of forethought.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"the full grown plant is more complex than the seed."

By what (and whose) measure? One could say the seed is more complex because it is everything jammed into a very tight space and much smaller.

Complexity appears to be a human term realitive to intelligence.

 

[Mercutio]

"the full grown plant is more complex than the seed."

By what (and whose) measure? One could say the seed is more complex because it is everything jammed into a very tight space and much smaller.

Complexity appears to be a human term realitive to intelligence.

bolding mine.

Um...only if you are willing to accept circular definitions. Genetically identical seeds may produce non-identical plants, due to environmental differences. Do you really claim that the final versions of both are the result of "everything jammed into a very tight space and much smaller"? Or do you think that there are additional variables besides what the seed contains? If the latter, is the seed still more complex to you?

I have additional questions for you, depending on your answers to these.

 

[hammegk]

Genetically identical seeds may produce non-identical plants, due to environmental differences.

Er, yes, programs give different results depending on input.

Do you really claim that the final versions of both are the result of "everything jammed into a very tight space and much smaller"?

Do you claim all relevant if..then statements are not pre-packaged within each seed?

 

[Mercutio]

Er, yes, programs give different results depending on input.

Do you claim all relevant if..then statements are not pre-packaged within each seed?

I do not know enough about plant biology to claim that plant DNA consists of if-then statements. I suspect (you could change my mind, of course, with evidence) that such statements can be circularly inferred.

 

[hammegk]

Picky, picky; maybe it's fortran statements ...

Think of if..then as an analogue to whatever style the coding operates.

 

[Mercutio]

Picky, picky; maybe it's fortran statements ...

Think of if..then as an analogue to whatever style the coding operates.

But that is exactly the problem--we are inferring "coding" from outcome, circularly. This is fine when we have been able to show, through manipulation, that gene X does Y. But that is not the same when we merely infer after the fact.

If a machine makes a particular sort of widget because of its programming, that is one thing. If we hit the machine with a tire iron and it makes a different sort of widget as a result, may we infer that this new widget was the intentional result of the original programming, with some heretofore unknown "if hit with tire iron...then produce Y result" coding? A circular definition of coding would say yes, but of course it could be the result of something other than what was originally coded. We can make "if-then" fit, with a crowbar and axle grease, but only circularly. If our "if-then" coding is inferred after the fact, it is unfalsifiable and meaningless.

eta: I actually had to learn to program in fortran. Thank you for making me feel old.

 

[hammegk]

But that is exactly the problem--we are inferring "coding" from outcome, circularly. This is fine when we have been able to show, through manipulation, that gene X does Y. But that is not the same when we merely infer after the fact.

Hogwash. What we "know" is that a seed of given genetics makes a specific plant. The code per se does not require reverse engineering to know that something was coded.

If a machine makes a particular sort of widget because of its programming, that is one thing.

Yes, it is, and given input, results occur.

If we hit the machine with a tire iron and it makes a different sort of widget as a result, may we infer that this new widget was the intentional result of the original programming, with some heretofore unknown "if hit with tire iron...then produce Y result" coding?

No, we can't. You either destroyed your machine, or by the oddest quirk of fate, macro-evolved it (if meaningful, unplanned, output continues unabated).

In this scenario the machine itself is part of the code.

eta: I actually had to learn to program in fortran.

No octal paper tape?

 

[Thinktoomuch]

After reading quite a few threads started by T'ai-Chi I have come to the considered conclusion that he is the one winning. Not the battle (the argument). He does not even try and I bet he is intelligent enough to understand when an argument is hopelessly flawed. He wins the war by throwing a piece of bread in the pond and then sitting back to watch all the ducks congregating. Every now and then he and occasionally somebody else (like hammegk?) throw in another another little chunk and the fun continues for pages. Killig (time instead of doing something useful for the cause) ratio: 20 to 1 for T'ai. OK, a vastly superior killing ratio did not save the Americans in Vietnam, and it is easily predictable that in the long run T'ai arguments also fall away, but do his victims really need the pain and suffering? Or do you all actually enjoy it?

 

[hammegk]

Or, you could be wrong.

 

[Mercutio]

Hogwash. What we "know" is that a seed of given genetics makes a specific plant. The code per se does not require reverse engineering to know that something was coded.

"We" = you and who else? A seed of given genetics, plus a given environment, makes a plant. How specific this plant is, and the extent to which environment can influence the outcome, I do not pretend to know. While perfectly willing to be convinced, I will not accept your second sentence by assertion alone.

Yes, it is, and given input, results occur.

No, we can't. You either destroyed your machine, or by the oddest quirk of fate, macro-evolved it (if meaningful, unplanned, output continues unabated).

In this scenario the machine itself is part of the code.

Thank you for illustrating my point. This "code" that you say the machine is part of is circularly inferred from the outcome. I congratulate you on being consistent (honestly); I do not agree that the code (including the machine), independent of the environment, determined the widgets. It is perfectly consistent with your view, but I find it circular, and cannot accept it without independent evidence.

No octal paper tape?

Magtape, yes. Paper tape, no. Not even IBM cards. Missed that by about a week.

 

[Foster Zygote]

After reading quite a few threads started by T'ai-Chi I have come to the considered conclusion that he is the one winning.

If that were the case then I doubt he would put so many people on 'ignore' simply for pointing out the flaws in his arguments. He's even stated in the past that he wished he could put the mods on 'ignore' (but just you try to ignore the rockers, T'ai!). If he really just intended to sow confusion he'd want to see more of it.

In the end I doubt anyone really thinks they'll get through to Justin. But the exercise helps to sharpen one's critical thinking skills. Think of it as mental shadow boxing.

 

[Unnamed]

If a machine makes a particular sort of widget because of its programming, that is one thing.

Yes, it is, and given input, results occur.

If the output (the tree) depends on the programming (the seed) AND on the inputs (the environment), then the tree is more complex than the seed, since (roughly)

complexity(tree) = complexity(seed) + complexity(inputs)

Or are you saying that all possible outcomes, due to different inputs, are already embedded in the programming in such a way that no new information ever appears?

 

[Unnamed]

This issue may come up soon, so let me define complexity(X) roughly as "complexity(X) measures how much information is needed to reproduce X".

The information in a tree is enough to reproduce a seed (that's its purpose, after all). But the information in a seed is not enough to reproduce a given tree, you need all the inputs and environmental influences during its whole growth history. So, clearly, complexity(tree) >> complexity(seed).

What alternative definition makes the seed more complex?

 

[Taffer]

Hammy, not all information is coded in the genetics of a seed. Take, for example, flowering time. There is one protein which is an inducer of flowering time. However, it is produced in equal quantities throughout the year. But, despite this, only if the protein is produced during longer days, is it 'active', and induces flowering time. This 'activation' appears to be independant of any other genetics system. In other words, somehow the environment works directly on a protein (the product of the 'code'), rather then the 'code' itself.

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Quote:

No octal paper tape?

Magtape, yes. Paper tape, no. Not even IBM cards. Missed that by about a week.

You spring chicken! Do you really need to make me feel so old?

 

[Art Vandelay]

That article is just bizarre. It presents no argument, simply declares that it violates the Second Law and that the sun doesn't change that. How in the world did Purdue give PhD to someone with such an incredible lack ofcritical thinking skills?

I happen to know about some studies where computer programs indeed evolved and tended to support the evolution hypothesis and embarassed and shut up creationists reviewing them.

That strikes me as wildly improbable.