Evolution Mathematics

The equations of evolution

Spread the love

For the Darwinists “evolution” by natural selection is what created all the species. Since they are used to say that evolution is well scientifically established as gravity, and given that Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s relativity theory, which deal with gravitation, are plenty of mathematical equations whose calculations pretty well match with the data, one could wonder how many equations there are in evolutionary theory, and how well they compute the biological data related to the Darwinian creation.

 

As known, Darwin introduced no math whatsoever in his theory of origin of species. Darwin hated math (not by chance). Therefore one had to wait for few XX century mathematicians before seeing some math in evolutionary theory. It is specifically in population genetics that one finally encounters some applications of probability theory and statistics. They consist basically in two main equations: the Hardy-Weinberg law and the Price equation. Here is not the case to examine in detail those equations, however something can be said about.

 

The Hardy-Weinberg law mathematically describes how a population is in equilibrium both for the frequency of alleles and for the frequency of genotypes. Indeed because this law is a fundamental principle of genetic equilibrium, it doesn’t support Darwinism, which means exactly the contrary, the breaking of equilibrium toward the increase of organization and creation of entirely new organisms. To claim that the Hardy-Weinberg law explains evolution is as to say that in mechanics a principle of statics (immobility) explains dynamics (movement and the forces causing it).

 

The Price equation is more complicated than the former because reformulates what is called Fisher’s theorem. Given this theorem is considered even the “fundamental theorem of natural selection” we could believe to be finally on target. For a detailed critic of Price’s analysis by serious statisticians see here. After having read such critic we are disenchanted. In fact, they, after having considered various possible examples of real application of Price’s theory, say that it is a model somehow circular, because:

 

“the data explain the data” […] “for doing statistics the Price equation did not help” […] “can’t think of anything remotely useful about the Price equation” […] “some of us remember a feeling of doubt when first confronted with the Price equation, it may be a relief to hear John Maynard Smith [the famous evolutionist] say ‘I’m not going to tell you what Price’s theorem is, because I don’t actually understand it’ …”

 

The Price equation tries to deal with the transitions between generations. But it is a statistical description of an evolutionary process considered a priori capable of increasing complex characteristics (related to fitness) in a population. These characteristics are thought never decreasing from the parent to the child population. In these conditions it is obvious the Price equation could be used to model any evolution and to prove any improvement, if one presupposes them. No wonder some evolutionists used it to prove the evolution of altruism, of sight, of sickle cell anemia, of … anything.

 

The final point to take is that, also to be very generous, the Price equation does not explain at all how new systems arise in the species in the first place. It gets them as input systems already created by an unknown organizational cause. But the Darwinist claim is that evolution does create biological systems, and the Price equation, like the Hardy-Weinberg law, helps exactly zero to explain such creation.

 

So the initial question, how well math support Darwinian evolution, has the short answer: it doesn’t support evolution at all. Despite of the pretension of evolution to be a scientific theory with the mathematical certitude of the hard sciences, properly the equations of evolution do not exist.

37 Replies to “The equations of evolution

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    niwrad, coincidentally I just posted a bit on this the other day.:

    Neo-Darwinism isn’t ‘science’ because, besides its stunning failure at establishing empirical validation in the lab, it has no mathematical basis, and furthermore neo-Darwinism can have no mathematical basis because of the atheistic insistence for the ‘random’ variable postulate at the base of its formulation (which prevents ‘mathematical certitude’):

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) –

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8

    quote from preceding video:

    “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!”
    Dr. David Berlinski

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

    Moreover neo-Darwinism isn’t science because the random variable postulate at the base of its formulation, when it is pushed to the limits of its explanatory power for our ability to comprehend reality through science, winds up driving the entire enterprise of science into epistemological failure:

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
    http://vimeo.com/34468027

    And Dr. Gordon’s astute observation in his last powerpoint is here:

    The End Of Materialism?
    * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all.
    * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle.
    * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose.
    * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible.

    Moreover,,,,

    Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    This ‘lack of a guarantee’(epistemological failure), for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism (neo-Darwinism) itself;

    Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism – Mike Keas – October 10, 2012
    Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:).
    Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga’s nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states:
    “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not.”
    Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305.
    http://blogs.christianpost.com.....ism-12421/

    Alvin Plantinga – Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8

    Philosopher Sticks Up for God
    Excerpt: Theism, with its vision of an orderly universe superintended by a God who created rational-minded creatures in his own image, “is vastly more hospitable to science than naturalism,” with its random process of natural selection, he (Plantinga) writes. “Indeed, it is theism, not naturalism, that deserves to be called ‘the scientific worldview.’”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12.....wanted=all

    “Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.”
    ~ Alvin Plantinga

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    Moreover Darwinism isn’t science because math, as far as math is able to be put to Darwinian claims through population genetics, falsifies Darwinian claims,,,

    Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008
    Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
    Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.
    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/techn.....Theory.pdf

    ,,, Yet Darwinists refuse to accept falsification through mathematics.

    “However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is.”
    – On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to ‘fix’ the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.

    Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test – Douglas Axe – July 18, 2012
    Excerpt: “For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be ‘neutral’). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
    My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they’re in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be.” Doug Axe PhD.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62351.html

    Michael Behe on the theory of constructive neutral evolution – February 2012
    Excerpt: I don’t mean to be unkind, but I think that the idea seems reasonable only to the extent that it is vague and undeveloped; when examined critically it quickly loses plausibility. The first thing to note about the paper is that it contains absolutely no calculations to support the feasibility of the model. This is inexcusable. – Michael Behe

    “No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests.”
    Leonardo Da Vinci

    Accounting for Variations – Dr. David Berlinski: – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2GkDkimkE

    Despite its failure in population genetics, there are a few ‘mathematical’ relationships for Darwinists that do seem to hold up quite well:

    “The perception of evolution’s explanatory power is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion.”
    – Eric

    ,,,Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them “creationists” — meaning “crackpots.” As one historian writes, the Darwinists’ attacks “have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory.”
    Terry Scambray

    Moreover,,,

    “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
    Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician/logician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Christian Theist!

    Verse and Music:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Brandon Heath – The Light In Me
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=VdAKabU3nOM

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Semi related:

    Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the world wants to understand evolution but can’t – James Tour, Phd. – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyAOCesHv0

  4. 4
    Joe says:

    Evolutionary equation?

    Mother Nature + Father Time + some unknown process = the diversity of life

  5. 5
    Phinehas says:

    I’ve often thought of natural selection as the heuristic to random mutations’ exhaustive search.

    A path-finding algorithm can be aided in finding a path from point A to point B by using distance to B as a heuristic to narrow the search space. Without a heuristic, you are left to blind chance.

    It is said that evolution has no purpose or goal, so there is no point B. It is also claimed that evolution isn’t simply the result of blind chance, so a heuristic would seem to be required. Somehow, natural selection is supposed to address both of these concerns. Nature selects for fitness, we are told, so now maybe we have our point B.

    But what is fitness? How does it work as a heuristic? How is it defined? Evidently, it is all about reproductive success. But how does one measure reproductive success?

    This is where things get fuzzy for me. Surely evolution is a story about the rise of more and more complex organisms. Isn’t this how the tree of life is laid out? Surely it is the complexity of highly developed organisms that evolution seeks to explain. Surely Mt. Improbable has man near its peak and bacteria near its base. But by what metric is man more successful at reproducing than bacteria?

    If I am a sponge somewhere between the two extremes, how is bacteria any less of a point B for me than man? Why should the fitness heuristic prefer a step upward in complexity toward man in any way whatsoever over a step downward in complexity toward bacteria?

    It seems that, under the more obvious metrics for calculating reproductive success, bacteria are hard to beat. Even more, a rise in complexity, if anything, would appear to lead to less reproductive success and not more.

    So how can natural selection be any sort of heuristic for helping us climb Mt Improbable’s complexity when every simpler organism at the base of the mountain is at least as fit in passing on its genes as the more complex organisms near it’s peak? And without this heuristic, how are we not back to a blind, exhaustive search?

    I suspect that the closer you come to treating natural selection and fitness as a real thing that can be defined by formulas or algorithms, the more obvious the above starts to appear. And I suspect this is why formulas and algorithms won’t be forthcoming any time soon.

  6. 6
    JDH says:

    Their is a mathematical equation for Neo-Darwinism

    Number of rigorous mathematical models of evolution = 0.

    This empirically observed equation has been true so far. Thus we can assume that it will continue that way.

    Any response Nick?

  7. 7
    JDH says:

    Note: the above comment should be taken only to be relevant about “Macro-evolution”. There probably are rigorous mathematical models for micro-evolution, but no serious person denies the existence of that, and personally I believe it is a feature put in by the Designer.

  8. 8
    Axel says:

    I think that what must make this demolition, annihilation, terminal mockery of the inane folly of the Darwinian evolutionists, citation by citation, paragraph by paragraph, so much more comical than it ought to have been, is that it is the received wisdom – and touted without, of course, any irony, by Darwinian evolution’s bitter-enders.

    When will they finally emerge, hands in the air, from the jungle-canopy of Darwinian fantasmagoria, which they have endlessly elaborated upon in the teeth of all the extraordinary advances in mathematical and empirical studies, refuting it, shouting, ‘Long live the (naked) Emperor!’ Surely, as long as money talks so loudly that the value of everything is ignored, in favour of its price.

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    Nick?

  10. 10
    dgsinclair says:

    Critique not critic

  11. 11
    timothya says:

    “Where are the evolutionary equations?” What a strange question.

    Virtually every study of biological population behaviour uses some variant of the standard statistical equations for partitioning sample variance between random error and controlled variables. Are you really unaware of these methods?

  12. 12
    Joe says:

    Earth to Joe Felsenstein- changing gene/ allele frequency is OK with baraminology. YOUR position requires much more than that. And a change in allele frequency does NOT support any mecahnism. So your equations cannot support darwinism.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    While it is very surprising, given the unflinching confidence of many Darwinists that their theory is ‘scientific’, to find that evolution doesn’t even have a rigorous mathematical basis within science so as to be considered ‘scientific’ in the first place,,,

    A Oxford University job ad for a mathematician noted:

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    ,,,I would like to try to make the case that, as shocking as it may seem to some, that Christianity, particularly from the resurrection event of Christ, does find unexpected support from mathematics. Particularly Christianity finds unexpected support from mathematics in the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a ‘theory of ‘everything’.

    General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are man’s two best mathematical descriptions of reality and are verified to almost incomprehensible accuracy. As Dr. Berlinski noted:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    And indeed the accuracy of both is impressive,,,

    Einstein’s General Relativity Tested Again, Much More Stringently – 2010
    Excerpt: In 1997 Peters used laser trapping techniques developed by Chu to capture cesium atoms and cool them to a few millionths of a degree K (in order to reduce their velocity as much as possible), and then used a vertical laser beam to impart an upward kick to the atoms in order to measure gravitational freefall.,,,
    As Müller puts it, “If the time of freefall was extended to the age of the universe – 14 billion years – the time difference between the upper and lower routes would be a mere one thousandth of a second, and the accuracy of the measurement would be 60 ps, the time it takes for light to travel about a centimetre.”
    http://www.universetoday.com/5.....ringently/

    Precision tests of QED
    Excerpt: Quantum electrodynamics (QED), a relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics, is among the most stringently tested theories in physics.
    The most precise and specific tests of QED consist of measurements of the electromagnetic fine structure constant,,,
    The most precise measurement of ? (alpha) comes from the anomalous magnetic dipole moment, or g?2 (“g minus 2”), of the electron.,,,
    As of February 2007, the best measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron was made by Gabrielse et al.,,,
    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 85 (76),
    a precision of better than one part in a trillion. (The digits in parentheses indicate the uncertainty in the last listed digits of the measurement.)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....nt_systems

    Moreover, it was shown in this following experiment/paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics as long as one starts out with free will and conscious observation as starting assumptions in Quantum Mechanics!

    Can quantum theory be improved? – July 23, 2012
    Excerpt: in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (*conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,,
    ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html

    Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science! This experiment, in my unqualified opinion, has received, thus far, far to little recognition for the achievement it represents.

    Moreover it is interesting to draw out the fact that Quantum Theory’s predictions, as to what particles will do, are based directly on what the mathematics says the particles will do, whereas General Relativity’s predictions, as to what particles will do, are, though based on math, ultimately reliant upon what the particles actually do:

    Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
    Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. (also see: Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012, physorg)
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot.....choice.htm

    GRBs Expand Astronomers’ Toolbox – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: a detailed analysis of the GRB (Gamma Ray Burst) in question demonstrated that photons of all energies arrived at essentially the same time. Consequently, these results falsify any quantum gravity models requiring the simplest form of a frothy space.
    http://www.reasons.org/GRBsExp.....ersToolbox

    Did the Universe Hyperinflate? – Hugh Ross – April 2010
    Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe’s curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 , ½k , 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 , ½k , 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,,
    http://www.reasons.org/did-universe-hyperinflate

    The curvature of the space time of the universe is ‘flat’ to at least 1 in 10^15 places of accuracy
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    But in attempts to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, Gravity is always the ‘odd man out’,,,

    Quantum electrodynamics
    Excerpt: Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.....rodynamics

    Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity
    Excerpt: The Gravity of the Situation
    The inability to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics didn’t just occur to physicists. It was actually after many other successful theories had already been developed that gravity was recognized as the elusive force. The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
    In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to.
    If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity.,,,
    http://www.infoplease.com/cig/.....ivity.html

    Yet, by all rights, gravity should be able to somehow be unified within Quantum theory:

    LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD – Vlatko Vedral – 2011
    Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must ex­plain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamental­ly spaceless and timeless physics.
    http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchan.....611038.pdf
    the zero infinity conflict

    One reason for this irreconcilability may be because we have two very different space-time curvatures with special relativity (which unifies with quantum theory) and with general relativity(the odd man out):

    Please note the 3:22 minute mark of the following video when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer accelerates towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.),,

    Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

    And please note the exact opposite effect for ‘falling’ into a blackhole. i.e. The 3-Dimensional world folds and collapses into a higher dimension as a ‘hypothetical’ observer falls towards the event horizon of the blackhole:

    Space-Time of a Black hole
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8

    The primary conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics mathematically appears to boil down to the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

    Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/

    Another interesting point to draw out in this conflict is that math is, even if a mathematical unification were possible between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, incomplete.

    Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties.
    1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning.
    2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions.
    3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false.
    The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem.
    Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation.
    Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).
    http://www.answersingenesis.or...../equation#

    i.e. the ‘incompleteness theorem’ shows that the ‘truthfulness’ of any mathematical equation is not held within the equation itself but is dependent on God to derive its ultimate truthfulness. But this obvious point, which has been highly contested, is, despite its contentious nature, fairly obvious as to its evident truthfulness:

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,,
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Yet if we rightfully allow God into mathematics, so as to offer a plausible reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity,,,

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    ,,, we find that a empirically based reconciliation, between Quantum Theory and General Relativity, readily pops out in the ‘event horizon’ witnessed on the Shroud of Turin:

    Turin Shroud 3-D Hologram – Face And Body – Dr. Petrus Soons – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5889891/

    THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist
    Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox.
    http://shroud3d.com/findings/i.....-formation

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
    http://www.academicjournals.or.....onacci.pdf

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin – updated video
    http://vimeo.com/34084462

    Music and verse:

    Evanescence – The Other Side (Lyric Video)
    http://www.vevo.com/watch/evan.....tantsearch

    Matthew 28:18
    And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth.”

  16. 16
    Joe says:

    Lizzie sez:

    There’s a third alternative, which neither kairosfocus nor Joe seem ever to consider, which is that the corrector may be wrong and the correctee correct.

    Yes, that is a possibility. However when the correctors actually provide references to support their claims and you provide nothing but you, then it is pretty nuch assured that you are wrong. And that has been the case so far.

    So if you could just start supporting your claims with actual valid references we wouldn’t have this issue. But when you spew easily refuted nonsense, don’t blame us.

  17. 17
    Joe says:

    Joe Felsenstein is still clueless. He thinks that just because natural selection exists that darwinism is saved. LoL!

    No JF, natural selection doesn’t do anything. So no, darwinism is still evidence-free.

    BTW JF, you need more than natural selection within a population. Darwinism claims much, much more than that.

  18. 18
    Joe says:

    Felsenstein sez:

    Meanwhile advocates of ID repeatedly try to give their readers the impression that evolutionary biologists refuse to be quantitative.

    And yet they cannot tell us how many mutations it takes to get a new body plan. They cannot quantify the differences observed, for example, between chimps and humans- how many mutations did it take?

    Heck your position can’t be tested.

  19. 19
    Joe says:

    And the “how” of evolutionism is what makes evolutionism collapse.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: video – As a surgeon Dr. Mary C. Neal was skeptical of people with life after death experiences until she had one of her own.
    http://www.cbn.com/tv/2178215942001

  21. 21
    Joe says:

    And another equivocator shows up:

    That’s not quite accurate. Darwin provided a diagram that encapsulates the mathematics of bifurcating descent.
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/gr....._fig01.jpg

    It may as well have been mindless doodling and the pattern would have been OK with evolutionism.

  22. 22
    Phinehas says:

    Felsenstein via Joe:

    Meanwhile advocates of ID repeatedly try to give their readers the impression that evolutionary biologists refuse to be quantitative.

    Quantitatively speaking, how do evolutionary biologists express the “fitness” of a man vs. a microbe?

  23. 23
    Robert Byers says:

    I hate math as I see it only as a language of reality and not part ofd discovery or invention. It doesn’t nurture hypothesis/hunch.
    Math is just a special case that order/truth can be expressed in measurement.
    The only place it is useful is in probabilities of evolution having created the glory of biology.
    It seems improbable.
    Math not being a part of evolution is not relevant , as I see it, as biology theories are all about real nature and real evidence.

  24. 24
    niwrad says:

    Robert Byers,

    Don’t hate math, for it is useful to make good theories. A theory expressed mathematically must be mathematically consistent. Example: I have a theory that “2 dogs + 2 dogs make 5 dogs”. Math disproves my theory, because 2+2=4, not 5.

    On the contrary, a theory expressed in natural language can be absurd and inconsistent. Example: Darwin’s theory that “RM+NS made all the species”. It is expressed in natural language and is absurd and inconsistent. Nevertheless, since in natural language I can even claim that “elephants fly”, Darwinism continues to be trusted.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Harvard neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander, my favorite Near Death Experiencer, was on Katie Couric’s talk show today – videos
    http://www.katiecouric.com/tag/dr-eben-alexander/

  26. 26
    PeterJ says:

    Wasn’t sure where to post this but thought it may be of some interest. Perhaps Nick Matzke could take him on, as surely for someone of his callibre it would be like take candy from an infant 😉

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl.....-evolution

  27. 27
    Phinehas says:

    @PeterJ

    Mastropaolo believes that evolution cannot be proved scientifically. “It turns out that there is nothing in the universe [that] is evolving, everything is devolving, everything is going in the opposite direction,” he said.

    I suppose this depends on your definition of evolution. To show that an organism changes over time would be rather trivial, but to present a positive case that the changes must be viewed as evolutionary and not devolutionary might be a bit more tricky.

    Also, I’m wondering how “literal” is being defined for the purposes of interpreting the Genesis account. As in a literal, 24-hour “day?” I’d think that would be pretty difficult to support, though I suppose you could drop back and punt with the notion that God created a “mature” universe along with a “mature” Adam and Eve and then claim the burden of proof to show otherwise rests on the opposition.

  28. 28
    Alan Fox says:

    Quantitatively speaking, how do evolutionary biologists express the “fitness” of a man vs. a microbe?

    Reproductive success is usually what is meant by fitness. As the biomass of living bacteria currently far exceeds that of all other organisms on Earth, perhaps they should be considered the pinnacle of fitness.

  29. 29
    Alan Fox says:

    So how can natural selection be any sort of heuristic for helping us climb Mt Improbable’s complexity when every simpler organism at the base of the mountain is at least as fit in passing on its genes as the more complex organisms near it’s peak? And without this heuristic, how are we not back to a blind, exhaustive search?

    I suspect that the closer you come to treating natural selection and fitness as a real thing that can be defined by formulas or algorithms, the more obvious the above starts to appear. And I suspect this is why formulas and algorithms won’t be forthcoming any time soon.

    If you are really interested, you should definitely look in here. And Joe Felsenstein has published this paper and others. I’m sure he’d be happy to discuss algorithms with you at TSZ if you were to call by.

  30. 30
    Robert Byers says:

    niwrad
    in both cases its not the math that shows the error but the observation of nature.
    Four dogs and not five is the true natural answer. Yet its really about dogs and not the numbers. tHey are just a language, or another language, of reality.
    One does not need the numbers to come to the truth.
    If math has been useful in figuring out things, like Newtons stuff, its only because of human carelessness in observation.
    It corrects human errors but is not a part of hypothesis or discovery etc.

    Thet stress math as a noun in the universe when I see it as not a noun but a verb or something.
    I question math exists except as a OTHER way of looking at things.
    it works because gOd created a orderly universe.
    Yet dividing it up, by numbers etc, and then saying it all adds up is a strange way at looking at things. WRONG.

    in origin issues I see math as relevant only in stressing probabilities against evolutionary biology.
    Even then common impression should of done the trick.
    Off topic but I don’t think math exists ecept as a reflection of existing nature.
    Its just number crunching.

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    Reproductive success is usually what is meant by fitness. As the biomass of living bacteria currently far exceeds that of all other organisms on Earth, perhaps they should be considered the pinnacle of fitness.

    Kind of makes you wonder why eukaryotes even got started. And it seems to go against natural selection. The less fit appear to be doing very, very well.

  32. 32
    Mung says:

    Alan Fox:

    I’m sure he’d be happy to discuss algorithms with you at TSZ if you were to call by.

    Unguided search algorithms? Do you know what an algorithm is?

    Probably not.

  33. 33
    niwrad says:

    Robert Byers #30

    I am a Pythagorean/Platonic. Without math, no physical science, no engineering. If you want to do science and engineering math is essential. The fact that Darwinism has no math is sign (among many others of course) that it has no connection to the physical reality it pretends to describe.

    One does not need the numbers to come to the truth.

    It depends on what you mean with “truth”. If, for example, the truth is to know if a new experimental airplane can exceed the speed of sound before its first launch, then I challenge you to know such truth without using a loooooot of math.

  34. 34
    Robert Byers says:

    miwrad
    its fine for engineering. However science means the idea of a hypothesis/discovery and proving its merits.
    I don’t see math as relevant to discovery in nature much less biology.
    its just a language of measurement relative to reality.
    Planes fly because of natures laws but not math concepts.
    They just help man figure out what otherwise instinct or smarts fail.
    Math is not a thinking man’s subject.
    its just memorizing measurements.
    Some discovery for better ways of measuring and people get famous for those discoveries.
    However computers do math and they don’t think. Even kids or idiot savants do it.
    Math is relevant to origins only for helping people see the improbability of evolution.
    yet in fact a sharp mind should perceive already I think.

  35. 35
    niwrad says:

    Robert Byers,

    “[math] is fine for engineering”

    Ah, at least you concede that. What is biology but natural engineering? Then math is fine for biology too.

    “Planes fly because of nature laws but not math concepts.”

    All physical laws are expressed or expressible in math concepts. An aircraft is “math that flies”.

    It is likely that you and I will never converge on this topic. You hate math and I love math. No problem. The important thing is that we agree that Darwinism is a hoax.

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Researchers find surprising similarities between genetic and computer codes

    Universal distribution of component frequencies in biological and technological systems – February 19, 2013
    Excerpt: Bacterial genomes and large-scale computer software projects both consist of a large number of components (genes or software packages) connected via a network of mutual dependencies. Components can be easily added or removed from individual systems, and their use frequencies vary over many orders of magnitude. We study this frequency distribution in genomes of approx. 500 bacterial species and in over 2 million Linux computers and find that in both cases it is described by the same scale-free power-law distribution with an additional peak near the tail of the distribution corresponding to nearly universal components. We argue that the existence of a power law distribution of frequencies of components is a general property of any modular system with a multilayered dependency network.,,,
    http://www.pnas.org/content/ea.....0.abstract

    Please note the quarter power scaling indicated on the last graph of the supporting information page:
    Supporting Information
    http://www.pnas.org/content/su.....7795SI.pdf

    Related notes:

    The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology
    Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale
    with body size as power laws of the form:

    Y = Yo M^b,

    where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent.
    A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling.
    http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~dre.....18_257.pdf

    “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/16037/

    4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5964041/

    What Is The Genome? It’s Certainly Not Junk! – Dr. Robert Carter – video – (Notes in video description)
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/8905583

    Comparing genomes to computer operating systems – Van – May 2010
    Excerpt: we present a comparison between the transcriptional regulatory network of a well-studied bacterium (Escherichia coli) and the call graph of a canonical OS (Linux) in terms of topology,,,
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439753

    Venter: Life Is Robotic Software – July 15, 2012
    Excerpt: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions,” said (Craig) Venter.
    http://crev.info/2012/07/life-is-robotic-software/

  37. 37
    niwrad says:

    Thanks bornagain77. Very interesting info and links, as usual from you, all related to math, informatics and biology. Not so off topic, after all!

Leave a Reply