evolution calculations

On a side note, could a mathematical model, not based on evidence, but on the premises of the theory - random mutation and selective pressure - show us that, given those premises, evolution has to happen? In other words, if we could state the premises in a mathematical form, would it be possible to prove mathematically that evolution is the logical conclusion?{Thanks to NosyNed for proposing the same idea, but sans mathematics.}

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

No, not if it contradicts physical evidence. But a model that maps the concepts of random mutation and selective pressure into mathematical statements, and which yields a mathematical statement that can be mapped back to the concept of evolution, most certainly has value, in my opinion. Provided, of course, that the mapping can be done very strictly. I was thinking along the lines of proofs such as found in geometry.The proof would not conclusively prove that biological evolution is true, but that, given the premises of the principle, the logical conclusion is that evolution must happen.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Curiosity perhaps?If organisms never change, the selective pressure must be zero. You are talking about a calculational model of evolution.What I am talking about is a logical model of the principle, a mathematical syllogism, or something like that. Maybe what I'm suggesting isn't even possible, I'm no mathematician.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You are right of course, Ned, I was too casual in my formulation. There must be non-zero selective pressure. It's just that it weeds out changes in a constant environment, instead of weeding out maladaptation in a changing environment.Dawkins ("The Blind Watchmaker", chapter 9) has it thus:

quote:

---

[...] if lineages go for many generations in the wild without changing, this is not because they resist change {something that was discussed earlier, P.} but because there is no natural selection pressure in favour of changing {emphasis mine, P}. They don't change because individuals that stay the same survive better than individuals that change.

---

I guess I initially oversaw the phrase "in favour of changing".The late Mayr ("What Evolution Is", appendix B, item 12: "How can long-lasting stasis be explained?") had this to say on the subject:

quote:

---

Stasis apparently indicates the possession of a genotype that is able to adjust to all changes in the environment without the need for changing its basic phenotype. To explain how this is done is the task of developmental genetics.

---

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

That's all very well of course, but have you considered that it was proviral life-size analyzed genomist of Bornean orangutan infected virus and the bubbles were prolonged order? It was a genomist published with exception of the monkey and the monkey which showed with the similarity removed obstructions from in genomist of the virus what bubbles, but the virus simian SFVora of the phylogen of the analysis that different bubbles hominoids of the virus where the bubble of this of the monkey of old world fz to him a distance which such as evolutionarily him clearly. This you who find propose the development where the interior of the owner which charged established more per much time the period will be independent.So it's either that or cappuccino.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Brad, monsieur Derrida would be spinning in his fresh grave if he heard his name mentioned in connection with that piece of prose, especially when, in the last paragraph of this post, I will 'deconstruct' it for you, or rather, give you the rough recipe for its reconstruction - perhaps much to the chagrin of Robin, for it removes the poetic quality entirely.But first let me tell you my reason for posting it in the first place. I have noticed that whenever somebody feeds you something intelligible, you come back with a dissemination of ideas (another Derridian favourite!) that even Jacques lui-mme would have had great trouble deconstructing in any meaningful way. So I thought: maybe it works the other way around as well. Feed Brad complete gibberish, and who knows...? And it seems to have worked: I could actually follow what you wrote back. And I liked it, it read like a scene from a Charlie Kaufman film.And how perceptive you were in that last remark! For here's how I produced the gibberish: I took two words from your post, 'biophysics' and 'orang' (which I extended to 'orangutan') and googled them. The second hit was a PubMed text, the abstract of which I ran through an automatic translator, converting it to Japanese. Then I converted it back to English, then to Russian, then back to English again. I believe French and Portugese were also involved, I don't quite remember. The resulting text I introduced to you with a sentence that began in an inconspicuously normal way."Therefore we will be incoherent, but without systematically resigning ourselves to incoherence" - Jacques Derrida.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 10 February 2005 22:47 AM

Dutch, German, a little French, Italian negligible.What about my avatar?

You're not going to tell me you have never seen "Star Trek Voyager", are you?The avatar is a picture of one of the characters in the series. Her name is Seven of Nine, maybe you can do a bit of googling yourself.

You are quite handsome yourself. Orang-wise.