Challenges to Darwin’s maths

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 24, 2014

Intelligent Design, Mathematics, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Not clear who put this site up, but it raises some interesting questions:

The computational capacity of the universe suggests an upper bound to the number of transformational steps available for any theory of origins.

The ratio between the computational upper bound and the number of ways a molecular cell can be structured is indicative of the probability space a theory should be able to traverse on the basis of a clearly supported mathematical model.

This is one of the key challenges facing a naturalistic explanation of life this paper reviews in the context of neo-Darwinism.

Well, way more interesting than the question of who the stupid yobs are who put up fake ID Facebook pages.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Dionisio @ 19: Is the little smiley mocking or approving ?Graham2_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

If I have a deck of 91 cards, there are about 10^140 different ways those cards can be arranged in order. 135200152767840296255166568759495142147586866476906677791741734597153670771559994765685283954750449427751168336768008192000000000000000000000 Also, now suppose I have a large number of atoms – let’s say about A = 10^24 (approximately Avogadro’s number), and I choose 6 of them through some random process. The number of different ways this can happen would be A choose 6 = A! ÷ [6! x (A-6)!] = [A x (A-1) x (A-2) x (A-3) x (A-4) x (A-5) x (A-6)!] ÷ [6! x (A-6)!] ~= = A^6 ÷ 6! ~= 10^141 1388888888888888888888868055555555555555555555673611111111111111111110798611111111111111111111491666666666666666666666500000000000000000000000 .cantor_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

#18 bornagain77
...to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space!
:)Dionisio_{November 25, 2014
November
11
Nov
25
25
2014
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Me_Think, as an atheist trying to prove the universe has no rhyme or reason (which is an self defeating proposition), both Gravity and Protein folding are not your friends in this endeavor,,, Finely Tuned Gravity (1 in 10^40 tolerance; which is just one inch of tolerance allowed on a imaginary ruler stretching across the diameter of the entire universe) – (27:32 minute mark) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ajqH4y8G0MI#t=1652 Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Besides evidence for quantum entanglement in proteins, We also have evidence for quantum computation solving the 'travelling salesman problem' within protein folding: Confronting Science’s Logical Limits – John L. Casti – 1996 Excerpt: It has been estimated that a supercomputer applying plausible rules for protein folding would need 10^127 years to find the final folded form for even a very short sequence consisting of just 100 amino acids. (The universe is 13.7 x 10^9 years old). In fact, in 1993 Aviezri S. Fraenkel of the University of Pennsylvania showed that the mathematical formulation of the protein-folding problem is computationally “hard” in the same way that the traveling-salesman problem is hard. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Confronting_Sciences_Logical_Limits.pdf A Few Hundred Thousand Computers vs. (The Folding Of) A Single Protein Molecule – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHqi3ih0GrI DNA computer helps travelling salesman - Philip Ball - 2000 Excerpt: Just about the meanest problems you can set a computer belong to the class called 'NP-complete'. The number of possible answers to these conundrums, and so the time required to find the correct solution, increases exponentially as the problem is scaled up in size. A famous example is the 'travelling salesman' puzzle, which involves finding the shortest route connecting all of a certain number of cities.,,, Solving the travelling-salesman problem is a little like finding the most stable folded shape of a protein's chain-like molecular structure -- in which the number of 'cities' can run to hundreds or even thousands. http://www.nature.com/news/2000/000113/full/news000113-10.html Yet it is exactly this type of ‘travelling salesman problem’ that quantum computers excel at: Speed Test of Quantum Versus Conventional Computing: Quantum Computer Wins - May 8, 2013 Excerpt: quantum computing is, "in some cases, really, really fast." McGeoch says the calculations the D-Wave excels at involve a specific combinatorial optimization problem, comparable in difficulty to the more famous "travelling salesperson" problem that's been a foundation of theoretical computing for decades.,,, "This type of computer is not intended for surfing the internet, but it does solve this narrow but important type of problem really, really fast," McGeoch says. "There are degrees of what it can do. If you want it to solve the exact problem it's built to solve, at the problem sizes I tested, it's thousands of times faster than anything I'm aware of. If you want it to solve more general problems of that size, I would say it competes -- it does as well as some of the best things I've looked at. At this point it's merely above average but shows a promising scaling trajectory." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130508122828.htm Here is the paper that proved that protein folding belongs to the physics of the quantum world and that protein folding does not belong to the physics of the classical world: Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/ also of note: Quantum states in proteins and protein assemblies: The essence of life? – STUART HAMEROFF, JACK TUSZYNSKI Excerpt: It is, in fact, the hydrophobic effect and attractions among non-polar hydrophobic groups by van der Waals forces which drive protein folding. Although the confluence of hydrophobic side groups are small, roughly 1/30 to 1/250 of protein volumes, they exert enormous influence in the regulation of protein dynamics and function. Several hydrophobic pockets may work cooperatively in a single protein (Figure 2, Left). Hydrophobic pockets may be considered the “brain” or nervous system of each protein.,,, Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids are composed of constituent molecules which have both non-polar and polar regions on opposite ends. In an aqueous medium the non-polar regions of any of these components will join together to form hydrophobic regions where quantum forces reign. http://www.tony5m17h.net/SHJTQprotein.pdf That quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply! Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, per Physorg etc.. etc.. In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!bornagain77_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

Can you explain how ID controls gravity to fold proteins?
Can you explain how that is relevant?Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Law of Joe talk : Every dialogue leads to silliness.
Only when you and your ilk try to respond. Nice own goalJoe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Law of Joe talk : Every dialogue leads to silliness.Me_Think_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Back to BA's post: Here's some more big numbers: If I have a deck of 91 cards, there are about 10^140 different ways those cards can be arranged in order. Also, now suppose I have a large number of atoms - let's say about A = 10^24 (approximately Avogadro's number), and I choose 6 of them through some random process. The number of different ways this can happen would be A choose 6 = A! ÷ [6! x (A-6)!] = [A x (A-1) x (A-2) x (A-3) x (A-4) x (A-5) x (A-6)!] ÷ [6! x (A-6)!] ~= = A^6 ÷ 6! ~= 10^141 That is, the number of possible ways of choosing just 6 elements from a set of Avogadro's number of atoms is as large as the number of states in the universe, taken as isolated events. I have no idea how one would actually compute the probabilities of things happening in sequence as various sub states of the universe pass from one moment to the next, and I'm not sure this is a real field of study,, but it seems to me that when one tries to think about how the world progresses from one state to another (i.e., causality), just counting the total of number of states the universe has been in as an isolated, non-interactional number might not be as "realistic" as counting how many possible combinations of states there might as particles interact with each other the world passes from one event to the next.Aleta_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 12
Gravity is evidence for ID
Really ? Can you explain how ID controls gravity to fold proteins?Me_Think_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

The only mechanism that would work to control all systems by agents would be an all pervading uniform system like gravity.
Gravity is evidence for ID- all of the laws are evidence for ID. Deal with that.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Your math is meaningless to everyone, yourself included. But then again you are happily deluded.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 9
your “math” is meaningless.
meaningless to you. agreed! I can't help it if you don't understand the math. As I said your personal incredulity doesn't matter.Me_Think_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

LoL! You're challenged, MT. You are also devoid of substance. Without actually making an argument your "math" is meaningless.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Joe @ 6 Without challenging the math, your personal incredulity can't be a reason to conclude something as nonsense.Me_Think_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

Seversky- there isn't any evolutionary theory so it cannot say anything about the ribosome.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

And has also been pointed out in those other threads MT is full of nonsense.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Talking of ID maths,as pointed out in other threads,the minimum number of ID agents that can provide a 90% probability of getting service (attention to processes) for just 30,000 process is 3,069. IOW, Minimize the capacity required for Binomial Distribution with n = 30,000 p=0.1 For a 99.9% ‘service’ probability, minimum 3,162 agents will be required. Imagine (because I don't have a network of computers to calculate) how much will be required for trillions of process in universe ! Essentially, we have a queuing system which will never reach a steady state whatever mechanism you use. The only mechanism that would work to control all systems by agents would be an all pervading uniform system like gravity. Show us such a system and then we can agree ID agents exist.Me_Think_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Consider the makeup of our universe: • Approximately 10^17 seconds have elapsed since the big bang. • Quantum physics limits the maximum number of states an atom can go through to 10^43 per second (the inverse of Planck time, i.e. the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) • The visible universe contains about 10^80 atoms. It seems reasonable to conclude that no more than 10^140 chemical reactions have occurred in the visible universe since the big bang (i.e. 10^17+43+80) Following from this evolution needs to be theoretically demonstrable within 10^140 molecular state transitions. (For comparative purposes see Seth Lloyd's "Computational Capacity of the Universe" [r62], reviewed by the Economist [r70]. Lloyd comes up with a value of 10^120). http://www.darwinsmaths.com/bornagain77_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

What is this computational upper bound of the universe? What is the quantity, how is it calculated, and what exactly does it measure. I'm curious. Can anyone explain, or offer specifics?Aleta_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Where in evolutionary theory is it claimed that complex structures like a ribosome or a cell sprang into existence fully-fledged? Unless that claim can be established, calculations such as that alluded to above are surely of academic interest but not much more.Seversky_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Darwinism i not about the math. Not unless it's temporarily convenient to claim that it's about the math. Then it's about the math.Mung_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply