Why Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers Tend to be More Skeptical of Darwinian Claims

_{GilDodgen
December 17, 2007

Darwinism, Engineering, Science

2}_{Categories
Darwinism
Engineering
Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Larry Moran’s presentation in a comment in Granville Sewell’s UD post, I found not particularly persuasive, for the following reasons. I’m not interested in definitions of science; I’m interested in how stuff actually works. I’m perfectly amenable to being convinced that the complexity, information content, and machinery of living systems can be explained by stochastic processes filtered by natural selection, and I would not even demand hard evidence, just some rigorous argumentation based on the following:

1) A particular aspect of any living system that displays a machine-like function (such as a ribosome).
2) Some specifics about what random genetic changes (of any type) would be required to engineer intermediate forms.
3) A reasonable estimate about the likelihood of these random changes occurring.
4) Another reasonable estimate about the likelihood of the hypothetical intermediate forms providing a statistically significant survival value.
5) Some kind of evidence or even reasonable conjecture that the number of individuals and reproductive events could provide the requisite probabilistic resources. Appeals to “deep time” are irrelevant.

These are the kinds of challenges that those of us involved in mathematics, computer science, and engineering tend to present, and the kinds of questions we tend to ask, because we must demonstrate that our stuff can actually work in the real world, or at least that it has a reasonable prospect of working in the real world. That’s why many of us tend to be skeptics.

Comments

So where does that inference come from? The fact that every mention of evolution doesn't involve calculus? The fact that there are more hits for calculus and engineering than for calculus and evolution? Well, the engineering google search i would think should have more hits, but there's still a lot for the evolution one too, eh? I guess my point is do people who believe in evolution have little understanding of calculus?Corey_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

If I mention things like fine-tuning of the universe he starts talking multiverses (!). - then you won. in 5 billion other universes your friend is a fish that plays golfari-freedom_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

I like Clumsy Brute's list above in #15, but in using quotes like that this is what I get (so please help if you can): In trying to convince colleagues that ID makes sense because Darwinism has limits I got this reply (from an engineer, no less): "So? God of the Gaps, blah blah, just because science hasn't figured it out yet doesn't mean it was designed." So I challenge him to come up with a better explanation. He can't but says "science will figure it out like they've figured out gaps before, you prove design to me." So I say "flagellum" and he points me to talkorigins or whatever and says it's a dead horse and another "God of Gaps". I looked it over, and the details are too complicated, so he may or may not have a point. I say "irreducible complexity" and he says "show me something other than the flagellum". I say bloodclotting and he starts talking Dover. I talk about Edge of Evolution and he points at a lot of blog entries (although nothing concrete and human readable) about biology details. I say CSI and he says it's not proven and he wants an example and asks "why didn't Dembski reply to the challenges in such-and-such a paper" (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf, but the math is too high level for me however the challenges seem easily refuted). I say bombardier beetle and many of the other examples that convince me, but he just doesn't get it. And he's an engineer, a good "designer" as it were and should be able to spot design a mile away. If I mention things like fine-tuning of the universe he starts talking multiverses (!). Is there simply something "i can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" about design? The argument just seems to go absolutely nowhere, in huge circles, like we're having a big Google and Wikipedia fight. I'm not trying to tell the guy his kids have to learn ID or that evolution is completely wrong, just that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Our little "debates" have an audience and I hate to back down or quit, but I just can't get anywhere... Sorry to rant, just looking for help!p.noyola_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Corey From a "gut feel" or ad hoc observation, a foundational understanding of calculus is very important to most commercial designers (mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, software engineers etc.) By contrast, the appearance is that most evolutionists (like Richard Dawkins) rarely use population genetics models possibly because from taking biology, zoology etc and avoiding calculus. The work of most population geneticists who do need to use such mathematical models appears to be little known. John Sanford's summary of population models appears devastating to evolution. Google search: Calculus engineering 798,000 Calculus evolution 554,000 (and most of the latter appear to refer to evolutionary algorithms.) Thus the inference that evolutionists avoid calculus.DLH_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

there are a lot of problems with sex. Half the population isn't reproducing and must spend lots of time courting and attracting unwanted attention from predators.ari-freedom_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

[...] Why Mathematicians, Computer Scientists, and Engineers Tend to be More Skeptical of Darwinian Claims I’m not interested in definitions of science; I’m interested in how stuff actually works. I’m perfectly amenable to being convinced that the complexity, information content, and machinery of living systems can be explained by stochastic processes filtered by natural selection, and I would not even demand hard evidence, just some rigorous argumentation based on the following: [...]» Best skeptics_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

"But frequently, the pure mathematicians invent/discover new math, and later it is found that it “works” in the real world." Is this a source of dissapointment for them ? I did hear comments to that effect from someone :)Jason Rennie_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

I don't think that most 'evolutionists' avoid calculus. Is that true?Corey_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H Thanks for the reference Bob to mutational meltown. e.g. Lynch on mutational meltdown in both asexual and sexual populations. Michael Lynch, Indiana University Michael Lynch home page Mutational Meltdown John Conery and Michael Lynch Lynch, R. Bürger, D. Butcher, and W. Gabriel. 1993. Mutational meltdowns in asexual populations. J. Heredity 84: 339-344. Gabriel, W., M. Lynch, and R. Bürger. 1993. Muller's ratchet and mutational meltdowns. Evolution 47: 1744-1757. PDF Lynch, M., J. Conery, and R. Bürger. 1995. Mutational meltdowns in sexual populations. Evolution 49: 1067-1080 PDF Right off, there appears to basis for avoiding mutational meltdown in large asexual populations vs small. There may be a difference in fixation, but that does not lessen the total mutational load. Worth examining Lynch's arguments in detail to identify the fallicy is. One challenge is that greater advantages of sex in smaller populations does not explain anything about how sexual differentiation originated. Smaller population sizes reduce the probabilities even more. The larger challenge is how to explain origin and survival of more complex biological systems with slow reproduction rates such as man , elephants and whales. This is particularly challenging in light of the ongoing increase in mutational load much greater than beneficial mutations.DLH_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

7) Show why it’s benefits are not overwhelmed by harmful mutations.
Done. For asexuals, apply Mike Lynch's mutational meltdown models - if the population size is large enough, they don't melt down. The situation is quantitatively different for sexuals, as I blogged about in the summer, the punchline is that the advantages of sex in combining "good" alleles becomes greater at smaller population sizes. IIRC, the relevant paper is by Otto and Nick Barton (Barton is a mathematician, BTW. At the previouds ESEB he gave his talk using Mathematica). BobBob O'H_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

While we're talking about "rigorous argumentation," could you offer a rigorous definition of "a machine-like function"?jgrr_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Dear Professor Moran, I think the problem that most of us "IDiots" have with the accepted mechanisms of evolution is that the actual data of what HAS occured (i.e. the fossil record) is far different from what Darwinists such as yourself claim has occured. Forgive me for questioning your authority, I'm merely a humble undergraduate. But isn't a scientific theory supposed to be based on data? The "important mechanisms of evolution" that you were so kind to explain to us - natural selection and random genetic drift - require a gradualist model of evolution. Even as you stated in your post, they work "over many generations" and "over a long period of time." The problem is that the fossil record doesn't support such a model. And it's not only "IDiots" who acknowledge that fact: “Phyletic gradualism was an a priori assertion from the start – it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.” - Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, “Punctuated Equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered” Paliobiology, 1977. Vol 3 pp 115-151, taken from the abstract. “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity…No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” - Eugene Koonin. “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution” Biology Direct, 2007 2:21. Taken from the abstract. “Neither classical morphology nor standard Darwinian analysis has provided truly satisfying explanations of such major body plan innovations as the…origin of the vertebrates by body axis inversion…These appear to...have little to do with gradual shifts in population gene frequencies under drive from natural selection.” - Aaron Filler (2007) "Homeotic Evolution in the Mammalia: Diversification of Therian Axial Seriation and the Morphogenetic Basis of Human Origins." PLoS ONE 2(10): e1019 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001019 So it seems that a mechanism different from the one asserted by you and most other Darwinists, is needed. If staunch evolutionists, such as those quoted above, can acknowledge that, then so can we. Perhaps if Darwinists spent less of their intellectual energy speculating how to fit the data to their a priori bias, and more of it making scientific inferences directly FROM the data, their efforts would yield more than just the occasional clever insult of an ID proponent. Sincerely, A Clumsy BruteClumsy Brute_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

well, about to show his total ignorance, but has anyone yet even found a way that a nucleotide could arise in nature? I feel I would have heard about this if it had happened. Prof Shapiro had said in his book that that was unknown; I would think it would have been trumpeted at the level of the Miller experiments; and if that's not something that would be important, why not?es58_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Help me here; whenever I mention this to folks,they respond: well, yes, this is an issue for "origin of life", but that's a totally different question from "evolution", and then I get called some label to imply....well you know thankses58_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

DLH You’re right. Mine is just a bare-bones list. It might be interesting to see what more could be added to it. I think this exercise demonstrates something that should be transparently obvious: only evolutionary biology is given a free pass when it comes to addressing these kinds of challenges and questions. It is the only “scientific” discipline that is not held to reasonably rigorous standards of evidence and logic. I think the reason for this is also obvious: blind-watchmaker mechanisms simply must have the creative power attributed to them, because the possibility that they don’t is philosophically unacceptable.GilDodgen_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Gil, Why not demand a lot? If an archaeologist dug up a shirt and floated a hypothesis that it was the result of purely stochastic processes, I'd want every detail. Thankses58_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

GilDogen Further to your criteria 1)-5): 6) Show a reasonable probability that the mutation will become fixed in the population; and 7) Show why it's benefits are not overwhelmed by harmful mutations. 5), 6) and 7) quantitatively distinguish real science from a hand waving "Just-So" story . (with apologies to Kipling) Preliminary estimates can be obtained by applying the major population genetics models as summarized in the appendix of John C. Sanford’s book “Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome” 2005 ISBN-13: 978-1599190020. We have yet to see any model of “evolution” that can quantitatively overcome such enormous reproductive improbabilities. A critical factor is the probability of beneficial to harmful mutations. The results in the literature range from 1:10,000 to 1:1, million. Anyone familiar with geometric series can begin to comprehend the consequences of 10,000 to one million times more harmful mutations then beneficial ones. (Or might that be why most evolutionists avoid calculus?!) Perhaps Larry Moran would care to demonstrate mathematically how "evolution" achieves such wonders of creative generation.DLH_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

I have to wonder if there is a correlation between years of education in the life sciences and the ability to apply common sense to biology. Just observing the contributions of the various engineers here at this site is all the answer I need.poachy_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

That's not to say applications don't matter. But frequently, the pure mathematicians invent/discover new math, and later it is found that it "works" in the real world. Incidentally, though I support evolution, this is the reason why I could never be an atheist. Math is just too nice and neat.mathstudent_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

It'd be nice if you distinguished between applied and pure mathematicians. Some of us could care less about things "working in the real world."mathstudent_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

I was a philosophy and computer science double-major in college. As a philosophy student, I am very interested in the definition of science. As a computer science student, I recoil in horor at the though of injecting random code into my working system unless my working system was designed to handle random injections.geoffrobinson_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

The Machine Two people are looking at a finely-tuned, highly sophistocated machine that produces massive amounts of complex, functioning items. 1: "It's remarkable what purposelessness can do." 2: "You think this machine came about and operates without purpose?" 1: "Yup." 2: "That's incredible. What makes you think that?" 1: "Come on. Everyone knows that everything in life is purposeless." 2: "Why do you say that? All machines I know of have been designed and built by intelligent beings." 1: "Yeah, but the intelligent beings came about through a process that's purposeless." 2: "How do you know?" 1: "Come on. Everyone knows that." 2: "Let me take another approach. Can you show me a working model of a machine that generates any type of functioning thing?" 1: "Here. Here they are. Pointing to Avida, etc." 2: "But these all have active information and an overarching purpose built-in! How can you claim that these are models for this machine?!" 1: "Well, I study portions of this machine for a living. All the books and all the important people in the field say it's all purposeless. So there. Who are you to question that?" 2: "I design and build machines every day. When we have an idea for a machine, before committing large amounts of money to its developent, we always need to prove that it will work by designing and building a working model. You want me to commit to the idea that this thing operates completely purposelessly, yet you haven't shown a proof-of-concept working model for your idea of how it works. Sorry, no can do."j_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

A great line from kairosfocus' link in post 3: "Only the layman seems to see the problem with this logic." I guess there is something to that "can't see the forest for the trees" expression after all!Gerry Rzeppa_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

Hi Gil: I, too would like to see a sound -- or at least reasonably plausible -- demonstration of the capacity of RV + NS to get to the mechanisms of life at cellular level, and the body-plan innovations as well. I invite Dr Moran to show how, maybe starting with the toy example here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

Gil - I know this is inappropriate here, but I can't find your email address anywhere. Based on your background, your posts here, and your interest in stuff that "can actually work in the real world", I'd like to get your opinion on an artificial intelligence matter. Please write me: help at osmosian dot com EDIT: Modified the email address so you don't get picked up by the spambots. - PatrickGerry Rzeppa_{December 17, 2007
December
12
Dec
17
17
2007
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

That is it isn't it Gil. "Why are engineers et al. tending to be skeptics of evolutionary claims", well they work in the real world where hand waving and appeals to magic, wait sorry, "deep time", don't cut it.Jason Rennie_{December 16, 2007
December
12
Dec
16
16
2007
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply