Poll: Does the Theory of Evolution have practical applications?

[SelfSim]

The way you validate a mathematical model is to test it against measured results. The way engineers do that is first study the physical model and then from first principles (the physical and mathematical laws of physics) derive the mathematical model.

The description of that first physical (or ideal) model is a math model.
Derivations from that initial model then incorporate new physical test measurements and observations (especially so in complex biological systems). There is then no need to verify that model because a properly built one has already taken observations and measurements into account.

It seems you've tried taking a short-cut which has then driven you to construct a purely theoretical model, which you then know you need to 'verify'. This is not a scientific, nor engineering approach to modelling.

 

[SelfSim]

I think that one of the reasons atheists embrace the ToE so tightly as part of their doctrine is that they see this as justification that they have no accountability to God.

.. and I think one of the reasons you've misconceived what's really going on there, is because of your determination to account to God.
Useful science models are indifferent to all beliefs (be they in God, or otherwise).

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That's all very well, but your calculations appear to be derived from the probability of a specific mutation.

Beneficial mutations are specific mutations but that's not the whole story. When the number of replications of a variant equals 1/(mutation rate) you will have on average one mutation at every site in the genome in some member of that variant. If the number of replications equals 4/(mutation rate), you will have on average every possible base substitution occur, on some member of that variant at least once.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Embracing the TOE is not necessary to dismiss claims of God.

Depend on your god.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

.. and I think one of the reasons you've misconceived what's really going on there, is because of your determination to account to God.
Useful science models are indifferent to all beliefs (be they in God, or otherwise).

So are you going to present your physical and mathematical model of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why don't you show that the model I've presented is misconceived?

 

[Alan Kleinman]

The description of that first physical (or ideal) model is a math model.
Derivations from that initial model then incorporate new physical test measurements and observations (especially so in complex biological systems). There is then no need to verify that model because a properly built one has already taken observations and measurements into account.

It seems you've tried taking a short-cut which has then driven you to construct a purely theoretical model, which you then know you need to 'verify'. This is not a scientific, nor engineering approach to modelling.

It may be that is what it seems to you but since I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering and have a state license in that profession, I'll stick with what I was trained, tested, and licensed to do. Biologists should take some engineering courses if they want to dabble in mathematical modeling of physical systems. Of course, nobody tests or licenses biologists for that skill.

 

[Astrid]

Looks like they already tried posting there: Kleinman: Four Questions About Evolution

Good catch. They treated him very politely,
but soon found he was all bluster.
Those are some serious players
there, no success snowing them.

So here, he has moved down the food
chain to where he's hoping to bamboozle
the rubes, only to get essentially the
same response, almost point by point.

Maybe AIG will take him in.

 

[Ken-1122]

Depend on your god.

No it doesn't, if you disagree, name a God and religion where believing the TOE is necessary in order to reject.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

Good catch. They treated him very politely,
but soon found he was all bluster.
Those are some serious players
there, no success snowing them.

So here, he has moved down the food
chain to where he's hoping to bamboozle
the rubes, only to get essentially the
same response, almost point by point.

Maybe AIG will take him in.

Serious players there just like here, seriously wrong. Maybe the flat-earth society will take you in. Estrid, perhaps you can do better? If you double the population size, do you double the probability of a beneficial mutation occurring? We'll find out how serious a player you are, not much. Don't worry, nobody expects you to answer, especially to give the correct answer.

 

[Astrid]

No it doesn't, if you disagree, name a God and religion where believing the TOE is necessary in order to reject.

Easy to find self styled infallible bible-
readers who think that God and ToE
are incomparable.

And others who figure its an insult to God to
reject his work, whats written into the very
earth we stand on.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

No it doesn't, if you disagree, name a God and religion where believing the TOE is necessary in order to reject.

What's the matter? Are you tired of talking about the physics and mathematics of evolution? Don't you think it is worthwhile to correctly describe the physics and mathematics of the evolution of drug-resistance and cancer treatment failure? Why don't you show us a practical application of the ToE that would help people suffering from diseases worsened by evolutionary processes if you can? But you can't.

 

[Ken-1122]

Easy to find self styled infallible bible-
readers who think that God and ToE
are incomparable.

And others who figure its an insult to God to
reject his work, whats written into the very
earth we stand on.

That's fine! Now care to answer my question now? Again; name a religion or God belief that requires believing the TOE in order to reject it?

 

[Ken-1122]

What's the matter? Are you tired of talking about the physics and mathematics of evolution?

When have I ever expressed an interest in talking about the physics and mathematics of evolution? Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else.

 

[Astrid]

That's fine! Now care to answer my question now? Again; name a religion or God belief that requires believing the TOE in order to reject it?

Nope, you are asking the wrong person.

 

[SelfSim]

So are you going to present your physical and mathematical model of the Kishony and Lenski experiments? Why don't you show that the model I've presented is misconceived?

Just out of interest are you familiar with Stuart Kauffman's 'The Origins of Self Order (1992)' and his follow up life's work?
He proposes:

That complex systems of many kinds exhibit high spontaneous order. This implies that such order is available to evolution and selective forces for further molding. But it also implies, quite profoundly, that the spontaneous order in such systems may enable, guide and limit selection. Therefore, the spontaneous order in complex systems implies that selection may not be the sole source of order in organisms, and that we must invent a new theory of evolution which encompasses the marriage of selection and self-organization.

 

[SelfSim]

Here's a quick review of Kauffman's above mentioned work:

The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution by Stuart Kauffman Oxford University Press, New York, 1993. Reviewed by Ronald F. Fox, School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia

Of relevance is:

Biological order obeys the first and second laws of thermodynamics and it is molecular in character. Its conceptualization rests firmly in physics and chemistry. Mathematics can sharpen some of the ideas, and it can make some ideas more accessible to physical scientists, but it is no substitute for experimental evidence from real biochemical experience. Empirically based conceptualization has come first and has been followed later by mathematical formalization.
I encourage the continuing efforts in this direction and I applaud Stuart Kauffman for showing us some of what can be done.

 

[SelfSim]

Good interview with Kauffman here ..

Goto the 7:00 minute mark where he's asked: 'How do new functions happen?' the discussion centers around the unreasonable expectation of mathematical models providing any insight into this question:

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, that explanation has a huge mathematical problem. It's called the multiplication rule of probabilities.

I suggest you go and talk to the experts and show them this 'huge mathematical problem'.

I'm happy to wait for your discovery of the 'huge mathematical problem' at the heart of evolutionary genetics to be splashed across the front pages, but I'm not holding my breath.

The fact that you're pushing your idea in a general science area of a Christian forum, where you'll be lucky to find anyone to challenge your mathematics, suggests that either you aren't as confident in your claim as your arrogance indicates, or you don't have the courage of your convictions, or you've already tried to convince the experts and had no joy.

I hope you find happiness, but I doubt you'll find it here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just out of interest are you familiar with Stuart Kauffman's 'The Origins of Self Order (1992)' and his follow up life's work?
He proposes:

This is a similar general area (biological self-organisation) to Michael Levin's work, mentioned earlier.

 

[Alan Kleinman]

That's fine! Now care to answer my question now? Again; name a religion or God belief that requires believing the TOE in order to reject it?

Yes Estrid, answer his question since you can't tell us any practical applications of the ToE. The ToE certainly doesn't explain the Kishony and Lenski experiments. In fact, the ToE doesn't explain how reptiles evolve into birds and fish evolve into mammals.