If seven equations rule the world, which one proves that Ken Miller’s Darwinism is right …

12 Replies to “If seven equations rule the world, which one proves that Ken Miller’s Darwinism is right …”

1. 1
   Joe says:

   February 13, 2012 at 6:32 pm

   A friend is pestering us to ask Ken Miller which of these equations prove that his view of evolution is correct.

   Equation #8:

   Father Time + Mother Nature + Magical Mystery Mutations = the diversity of life
2. 2
   NickMatzke_UD says:

   February 13, 2012 at 8:51 pm

   Eh? Why would anyone think that any of the equations chosen by some random journalist for some random pop-science piece would having any bearing on evolution? Which of the equations prove that the Earth goes around the Sun, for that matter? Or that it is 4.5 billion years old? I assume it’s a lame attempt at a joke.
3. 3
   GilDodgen says:

   February 13, 2012 at 9:14 pm

   I remember that at the end of a college course in integral calculus (during which we learned all kinds of integration techniques such as integration by parts, integration by trigonometric substitution, etc.) we were told that, statistically, very little in the real world is subject to analytical solutions, and that most problems must integrated numerically (that is, by brute force, which is what computers are for).

   I love mathematics, and they are certainly very powerful. In fact, in one my Christian apologetics lectures — which I entitle, I no longer have enough faith to be an atheist — I discuss the mysterious fact that the underlying nature of the physical universe, the laws of physics, can be represented mathematically. This suggests design, to me at least, and that human minds were designed to discover this relationship.

   Concerning wave forms and the fact that Fourier demonstrated that, no matter how complex, all wave forms can be reduced to an imposition of sine waves:

   During my commute to work each day I listen to classical music in my car. Recently, I’ve been listening to Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade. What I hear is a single, linear wave form produced by an entire orchestra, but my mind can pick out all the characteristics of the sounds produced by the individual instruments, all superimposed in that single wave form.

   I can individually distinguish the timpani, the flutes, the oboes, the harp, the violins, the French horns, the trumpets! How on earth could my mind differentiate all this stuff and recognize each individual instrument when it is all mixed up in one complex wave form!

   Oh, and one more thing: When I was a child there was only one radio station in my small college town. They played almost nothing but classical music. The “bumper music” for a program on that radio station, played every evening just before dinner time, was the theme from the third movement of Scheherazade. When I hear that theme I am immediately transported back to my youth, and I can feel everything I felt at that time.

   How can my mind, soul, and brain do this?

   Oops, silly me. Darwin explained it all in 1859. These capabilities of my mind and brain came about by natural selection and random mutation. This is the scientific consensus. Who am I to suggest his theory deserves contempt, rather than adulation? I guess I must be an IDiot.
4. 4
   bornagain77 says:

   February 13, 2012 at 9:48 pm

   Nick, did you know I was shocked to learn that evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation as all the other sciences do? It could almost certainly be argued that evolution is not even a science because of that fact!:

   DNA Degeneration: Top Population Geneticists agree neo-Darwinism is not supported by the data – John Sanford
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEkqwOXE5U

   Oxford University Admits Darwinism’s Shaky Math Foundation – May 2011
   Excerpt: 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.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46351.html

   The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology
   Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.

   Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial – David Berlinski – November 2011
   Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. “A critique of neo-Darwinism,” the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, “can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science.”
   By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53171.html

   Bernard d’Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist – October 5, 2011
   Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.
   http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51571.html

   Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
   Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
   http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

   “Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science.”
   Granville Sewell – Professor Of Mathematics – University Of Texas – El Paso

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

   As far as foundational equations of the universe, I found this video by Dr. Bradley very informative:

   The Underlying Mathematical Foundation Of The Universe -Walter Bradley – video
   http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491491

   How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe – Dr. Walter L. Bradley – paper
   http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

   The Five Foundational Equations of the Universe and Brief Descriptions of Each:
   http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....#038;hl=en

   Music and verse:

   The Civil Wars – Barton Hollow
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooTyuRd9zSg

   Romans 1:20
   For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
5. 5
   bornagain77 says:

   February 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm

   Also of note to neo-Darwinism’s failure to provide a rational mathematical foundation for itself in science, is that the countervailing position to neo-Darwinism, Genetic Entropy, lends itself very well to mathematical analysis:

   Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
   Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.
   http://bioinformatics.cau.edu......aproof.pdf
   MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE
   http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net
6. 6
   Joe says:

   February 14, 2012 at 6:48 am

   Yes Nick Matzke, the “theory” of evolution is a lame joke.

   That is the whole point.
7. 7
   NickMatzke_UD says:

   February 14, 2012 at 4:12 pm

   Nick, did you know I was shocked to learn that evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation as all the other sciences do? It could almost certainly be argued that evolution is not even a science because of that fact!

   Please state the mathematical foundation of geology.
8. 8
   bornagain77 says:

   February 14, 2012 at 4:22 pm

   Mathematica includes thousands of built-in functions for computation, modeling, visualization, development, and deployment »
   Geoscience-specific capabilities:
   Comprehensive, built-in database of geodetic datums and reference ellipsoids »
   New In Eight Free-form linguistic input produces immediate results without the need for syntax »
   Enhanced In Eight Advanced geodesy tools for high precision map projection; analysis of geodynamic phenomena, such as crustal motion; polar motion; and more. »
   ENHANCED Advanced geodesy tools for high precision map projection; analysis of geodynamic phenomena, such as crustal motion; polar motion; and more.
   Built-in functions for deriving first-order, second-moment expansions and Monte Carlo simulations for probabilistic stability analysis of forested slopes and other applications »
   Enhanced In Eight State-of-the-art image processing algorithms to analyze geological structures »
   Multidimensional curve fitting and plotting of void ratio, confining stress, and stress-dependent permeability data for hydrogeology applications »
   Build interactive seismic hazard analysis models »
   Advanced statistical analysis using built-in functions for nonlinear regression, generalized linear model fit, and more for geo-mechanical applications such as determining the stresses around a bore hole
   Automatic algorithm selection by built-in superfunctions such as NDSolve ensure accurate results to complex numerical problems in geo-mechanics, structural geology, and more
   http://www.wolfram.com/solutio.....osciences/

   perhaps something more specific?

   I am currently a 2nd year Ph.D. student at the University of Minnesota in Geology and want to report the advantages that C&M DiffEq has given me. It turns out that describing the mathematics of deformation in rocks is simply the flow section of C&M Diffeq expanded to 3-D. If you can find the strain matrix of the rocks (matrix of the diffeq in C&M), you can get flow paths and watch how the rock deforms. Another one of my advisor’s students had been working on this before I came and has developed the theory behind relating these flow paths to rock deformation. It was considered quite neat that I had actually learned how to do this as an undergrad in C&M. I am using the C&M DiffEq lessons to teach new geology grad students the mathematics behind our work.
   — A graduate student in Geology on DiffEq & Mathematica
9. 9
   Starbuck says:

   February 14, 2012 at 4:35 pm

   From s=0 to a big and positive quantity — you can read Kimura’s theoretical work on the fixation probability P(fixation probability given initial frequency p) = (1-e(4nps)/(1-e(4ns) for new mutant this P (i/2n) = (1-e(2s))/(1-e(4ns)) — s is selective coefficient measuring the selective effect. You might also be interested in this
10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    February 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial – David Berlinski – November 2011
    Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. “A critique of neo-Darwinism,” the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, “can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science.”
    By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53171.html
11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    February 14, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Moreover the evidence we have indicates that mutations are not neutral as Kimura had presupposed in his model:

    Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010
    Excerpt:,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....teria.html

    Which only makes sense;

    Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason (Part II) – April 2010
    Excerpt: ,,, since junk DNA would put an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication, it stands to reason that it would more likely be eliminated through selective pressures.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....n-part-ii/

    This study backs up the preceding observation:

    Experimental Evolution of Gene Duplicates in a Bacterial Plasmid Model
    Excerpt: In a striking contradiction to our model, no such conditions were found. The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....4014664w8/

    Further notes:

    Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) – October 2010
    Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....ruit_flies

    The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis – January 2012
    Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....03g3t7002/

    Peer-Reviewed Paper Concludes that Darwinism “Has Pretty Much Reached the End of Its Rope” – Jonathan M. – February , 2012
    Excerpt: Contrary to the Darwin lobby’s oft-repeated assertion that there are absolutely no weaknesses in Darwinian theory, the paper offers the concession that the modern synthesis has never provided an account of “how major forms of life evolved” — an omission that is not unsubstantial, to put it mildly.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55941.html

    The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011)
    Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits.
    http://www.biosignaling.com/co.....X-9-30.pdf
12. 12
    Starbuck says:

    February 14, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    What they saw in the Burke et al paper was no evidence for hard sweeps, that is, the great amount of adaptation they saw in these populations was best explained by several dozen regions that were all experiencing soft sweeps.Under a soft selective sweep things are a little different. A new mutation arises, but initially it is neutral and due to “random genetic drift” slowly reaches an allele frequency of perhaps a few percent. Then there is a change in the
    environment, that make that mutation that was previously neutral, advantageous, and it is quickly fixed by natural selection. The big difference under the soft sweep model is that the regions flanking the fixed variants can have almost normal levels of variation. That is, there is no great reduction in flanking heterozygosity.