The mathematical probability of Evolution?

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

To put some context here, you somehow connect all this to our prior conversation…

@GJDS

I also note a previous exchange that sought to show ToE was “similar” (whatever that means), to theories of physics and chemistry.

What is confusing about what I said?

@Swamidass

Biology is (1) not physics, but (2) it is like physics in some specific ways.

@Swamidass

my use of the words “explains” is in the same way as it is used in physics, which means there is a quantitative and mechanistic theory that can compute accurate predictions based on some data to predict other data.

And the only reason this came up was because you dismissed my point by saying that it was just an opinion because I used the word “explains.” I just do not get how this can be summarized the way you put it.

---

Moreover, your confusion is hard to follow.

@GJDS

”. Now keep in mind that my comment was to seek either: (a) a clear stochastic methodology that would give mathematical credence to randomness in ToE, or (b) if it is on a par with physics and chemistry, an ab initio treatment to show/explain how similar ToE is to say, QM.

First of, as far as I know, the only claim of ontological randomness in science is in quantum mechanics. Randomness in biology is very similar to that described by @sfmatheson…

@sfmatheson

No one knows how to predict when and where a particular mutation will happen, just as no one knows how to predict when and where a meteorite will land.

Our failure to predict the exact impact points of every meteor does not somehow invalidate the law of gravity. We also might say that “meteor’s fall randomly” as a way of saying that we cannot predict this. Of course, this is not an ontological statement of randomness, nor is it a statement for or against teleology. In fact, absent God’s direct action, we think with perfect knowledge we can actually predict meteors falling. But absent perfect knowledge, they appear random to us.

That is what we mean when we say mutations are random. We make no statement in science about ontological randomness here, so there is no way to give “mathematical credence” to a notion we do not even hold to.

---

Moreover, your understanding of evolution is surprisingly week for having been on the forums for so long. You evolution thusly…

@GJDS

According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems.

This is just false. This is not the most widely accepted theory of evolution today. Back in the 60’s this was falsified as the dominant mechanism of evolution by Kimura and Haldane. I turns out that neutral processes are much more important than positive selection.

This was discovered 50 years ago. It might be time to catch up to a modern understanding of evolution. Disagree with it if you must, but why misrepresent it?

@GJDS

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them.

This also is false on many levels.

Most mutations are neutral, not harmful. In fact, on average every healthy child has 100 point mutations and about 1000 bases deleted or duplicated compared to their parents.

You say mutations do not increase order, but duplications are an obvious case that increase the order in systems. So clearly your claim is false. Many mutations actually can increase order. Though it is true that most mutations will decrease order, and thereby introduce new information in DNA (remember entropy = information).

@GJDS

Perhaps you can perform something like that and provide the rest of us poor scientists with your mathematical (not semantic) rendition of ToE.

I have already done this. You ignored it. Maybe try rereading those posts.