Comparing Darwin to a real math and physics genius
| March 8, 2007 | Posted by scordova under Intelligent Design |
Darwin wrote of himself:
I attempted mathematics [at Cambridge University ], and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps of algebra. This impatience was foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.
Autobiography (p. 58 of the 1958 Norton edition)
[thanks to an un-named friend for uncovering the above quote]
I do not wish to overly demean someone for not being mathematically gifted (after all Darwin is not to be blamed for the genes he inherited), but the fact remains Darwin and math don’t mix. Darwin viewed math to be repugnant, and his lack of mathematical insight permeates his illogical ideas about the evolution of life.
In contrast to Darwin, there was the ID proponent and creationist James Clerk Maxwell who was a math and physics genius. Einstein viewed Maxwell as one of the three greatest scientists in history (the ID proponents Newton and Faraday being the other two). Had there been no Einstein, we might be saying instead the name Maxwell to signify genius. It was through those divine Maxwell’s Equations of electro dynamics that Einstein formulated his famous theory of relativity, and it was through Maxwell’s Equations that the modern world is what it is today.
From a physics textbook by Halliday and Resnick:
As for Maxwell’s equations, the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann (quoting a line from Goethe) wrote: “Was it a God who wrote these lines …?” In more recent times J.R. Pierce, in a book chapter entitled “Maxwell’s Wonderful Equations,” wrote: “To anyone who is motivated by anything beyond the most narrowly practical it is worthwhile to understand Maxwell’s equations simply for the good of his soul.” The scope of these equations has been well summarized by the remark that Maxwell’s equations account for the facts that a compass needle points north, That light bends when it enters water, and that your car starts when you turn the ignition key. These equations are the basis for the operation of all such electromagnetic and optical devices as electric motors, telescopes, cyclotrons, eyeglasses, television transmitters and receivers, telephones, electromagnets, radar, and microwave ovens.
By contrast, Darwin’s non-equations have done nothing for the world of science and modern technology. Let the world of science commemorate things like Maxwell’s Year more than Darwin Day.
From a long view of the history of mankind  seen from, say, ten thousand years from now, there can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics.
Richard Feynman
Nobel Lareate in Physics
Amen brother Feynman, Amen.
46 Responses to Comparing Darwin to a real math and physics genius
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
PaV,
I have that same book on my bookshelf in my reading queue. Glancing over the mathematics involved made me suspect that perhaps it might be beyond my present day math skill (I did take plenty of math at the university (differential equations, linear algebra, multivariable calculus, optimization, etc), but it has been years since I’ve had to use any of it). This is probably why it is still on my “to read” list.
Anyway, is there any chance you might take some of his ideas and distill them into a less formidable format? Something like the “teaching” approach you mentioned was missing from his treatment.
I know I would appreciate an accompanying “cliff notes”.
It makes you wonder how they could have let a half-wit like Darwin run halfway around the world on the king’s money doesn’t it? How many pounds of salt-pork did you need again?
[...] Comparing Darwin to a real math and physics genius. [...]
(It should be remembered that astrophysicists, like Hoyle, deal with the QM behavior of astral light, a study of which requires various kinds of probability distributions.) ==PaV
Hmmm… “Astral light” sounds like something Shirley McClain might attack me with.
I appreciate your civil and valiant effort to defend an idea which I sense you have a liking for.
But the fact remains Kimura’s ideas for neutral theory were anti-Darwinian (though not pro-Design). He mathematically demonstrated the overwhelming majority of molecular evolution was not Darwinian. Molecular evolution was his specialty, and this is a classic example of the fact math and Darwin don’t mix when confronted with the numbers.
Fisher and Wright was built upon by Haldane, and that led to Haldane’s dilemma which Kimura “solved” (I use the term loosely) with non-Darwinian evolution for molecular evolution.
Natural selection’s role in morphological evolution is still in dispute. It can’t be on a very solid footing if you have people like Eric Davidson and Stephen Gould proclaiming that neo-Darwinism is dead.
It is not quite so easy to apply math to morphological evolution as it was to molecular evolution, but perhaps one day it will be rigorously applied and we will be forced to dismiss Darwin from morphological evoluton as much as he’s been dismissed from molecular evolution.
I should add, since I mentioned Maxwell, the critique of Darwin was made possible because of the atomic/molecular theory of matter, which Maxwell was a pioneer. And it was breakthroughs in molecular biology from which Darwinian evolution is being challenged.
Note, I’m not in this thread criticizing the notion of Common Ancestry, but Common Ancestry is not synonymous with Darwinian evolution.
I thank you for trying to engage the participants at UD. You may sometimes wonder someone like myself is so dismissive of Darwin. I can only say when I compare Maxwell’s Equations to Darwin’s writing, I can hardly think Darwin’s Origin of Species is remotely in the same league scientifically.
I did when I was studying biology in 9th grade. Though I’m a Presbyterian (PCA) today, I was raised in a non-Fundamentalist Roman Catholic household that did not think nor care much about the issue of origins.
I became inspired to join the cause when I saw friends, colleagues, professors being denigrated and demonized and threatened.
I’m not to this day involved in the Public School issue, I’m far more concerned for the welfare of my comrades.
I’m glad people are reading Hoyle. The only caution is that ReMine rightly points out Hoyle was inaccurate in his characterization of Haldane’s work.
Hoyle was prophetic in his prediction of the demise of the molecular clock and protein phylogenies (a favorite of Neutralists like Kimura). See: Molecular Clocks: Michael Denton continues to be vindicated.
Hoyle was among the first to use the phrase “intelligent design”.
A couple of points.
First, it’s simply not polite to speak ill of the dead.
2. “But the fact remains Kimura’s ideas for neutral theory were anti-Darwinian (though not pro-Design).” –Sal
Kimura is not anti-Darwinian as I understand him. Rather, he’s completely complementary to Darwin. He simply shows how biological characters in populations can change based on chance sampling rather than selection. There is nothing in Darwin’s ideas that precluded that possibility, particularly since the molecular characters Kimura was generally focusing on were completely unknown to Darwin.
3. “Molecular evolution was his [Kimura's] specialty, and this is a classic example of the fact math and Darwin don’t mix when confronted with the numbers.” –Sal
Kimura, IMO, was a classic example of such mixing occurring. Kimura’s work comes soon after appreciable molecular data(protein and nucleic acid) were available for *any* kind of analysis of molecular evolution whatsoever. He dealt with some obvious problems with the way folks were traditionally thinking of polymorphisms based on the newly available data(i.e. as always under selection). The old ideas were untenable, but instead of throwing out evolution he instead showed the strength of the theory by showing, mathematically, how molecular change without selection is not only possible, but expected.
4. “Fisher and Wright was built upon by Haldane, and that led to Haldane’s dilemma which Kimura “solved†(I use the term loosely) with non-Darwinian evolution for molecular evolution.” -Sal
But how is this showing the math was flawed and/or not compatible with Darwin? Kimura overcame a significant part of the obstacle presented by Haldane’s dilemma. Just how much obstacle remains depends on parameters still unknown, but clearly we are optimistic things will pan out in our favor. So nothing has been shown to be unworkable mathematically thus far.
5. “…but perhaps one day it will be rigorously applied and we will be forced to dismiss Darwin from morphological evolution as much as he’s been dismissed from molecular evolution.” –Sal
Darwin has not been dismissed from molecular evolution. Or at least if he was, no one bothered to send me the memo. If you are referring to neutral theory, neutral theory provides a means to statistically evaluate claims for selection by providing a null hypothesis. A multitude of examples of positive selection on characters are published and continue to be published. Neutral theory has cemented the case for positive molecular selection.
Sal, your ability to remain civil despite some rather harsh treatment across several forums is commendable. But yes, I do have to wonder at how that same amicable fellow conjures up dismissive, loosely strung together ideas such as above. They do nothing but make your own folks see the others actual objective position as considerably weaker than it is in fact. Sorry, but it kind of reminds me of that fellow, “Iraqi Joe,” who just kept giving rosy reports of how the Americans were being handily beaten back out of Iraq in the second war. Even as the bombs were falling around him. One questions the viability of this strategy.
A multitude of papers is no substitute for the truth. These papers are being presented as science when they are merely assertions and circularly reasoned arguments. They are little more than doing sequence comparisons and saying, “look what natural selection has done”.
One fact keeps getting shoved aside. Policing such large regions of conserved regions incurs a cost and is inconsistent with the population resources available.
See Nachman’s U-Paradox to get an idea of why this is prohibitive. Analysis of the cost of maintaining those regions suggests the regions are conserved by non-selective mechanisms.
The uncomfortable fact of deeply conserved regions not generated by selection is alluded to in Life goes on without ‘vital’ DNA
No mechanism? Not even natural selection!
There is always the obligatory salute to Darwin. I will quote Kimura himself (who makes the obligatory salute to Darwin, while simultaneously refuting Darwin). Kimura also references Haldane in this quote:
This is double speak by Kimura, but even then it betrays a significant truth. The majority of evolutionary change at the molecular level can not be ascribed to natural selection. The double speak phrase is “neutral in natural selection.” If it’s neutral, it’s not in natural selection. Reference to natural selection was an obligatory salute.
That’s a far cry from being proven and that’s a far cry from the amount of empirical validation found in operational theories like Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
In any case, I respect your opinion, but I will offer that the matter could be settled in the old fashioned way via empiricism. At this stage we can only disagree, but the time will come when one of us will be shown wrong. I pointed out the avenue by which one of us may be vindicated by the empirical evidence. See: Solexa: A development which may lead to measuring claims of ID proponents.
Until that day arrives, I suppose we will just have to wait and make falsifiable predictions of what Solexa technology will uncover.
I should note, someone from your side of the aisle jumped ship in the person of John Sanford. He is a geneticist at Cornell and one of the most accomplished genetic engineers in recent decades. I think the numbers and the math agree with Sanford. It’s only a matter of time before more data pours in to help us decide what really happened in the past.
Sanford’s book is Genetic Entropy. I highly recommend it as a cursory outline of the mathematical case against Darwinian evolution.
PaV –
Speaking of Wistar — if anyone wants a copy of Wistar, I scanned a copy into a PDF. I asked Wistar if they would sell me the redistribution rights and they said no, but under copyright law I believe I am free to give it away for free to individuals for research purposes. So if you or anyone else wants a copy for research purposes, email me at [email protected] with Wistar in the subject line.
Atom: “Anyway, is there any chance you might take some of his ideas and distill them into a less formidable format? Something like the “teaching†approach you mentioned was missing from his treatment.”
Well, as of this morning I would have answered, “Yes”; but, since then I’ve run into an equation that I have no clue how Hoyle derived. It’s the second derivative in time of an equation where “time” doesn’t appear in the equation since Hoyle uses a “generation” as the increment of time. This isn’t to say that it is wrong; only that it might remain undecipherable–unfortunately. But let me finish the book first, and then I’ll see what I can pull off.
johnnyb: about the Wistar: I’m on vacation; when I get home to my computer I’ll email you. Thanks. In fact, a million thanks!
I will bow out now as disentangling our various premises, their relative merits, as well as where we are speaking past each other (intentionally or otherwise), will require more time than either of us likely has to offer. I will, however, clarify one point about the Haussler quote Sal provided as it of particular scientific interest and currently not appreciated nearly enough IMO.
the quote:
“What’s most mysterious is that we don’t know any molecular mechanism that would demand conservation like this,†Haussler says.
To which Salvador adds:
“No mechanism? Not even natural selection!”
If I understand Sal’s comment correctly, he is implying that Haussler knows of no mechanism that *could preserve* sequence that completely over those time periods. Although the two points are related, what Haussler is actually emphasizing is not our ignorance of the mechanism of preservation but rather the *demand* for such preservation to begin with. That is, we currently have no idea what sort of biological system would even *require* that sort of strict sequence specificity, on that scale, over that amount of time. That’s the fascinating thing. (Systems we currently understand allow some wiggle room, compensatory mutations, etc)It suggests there is some fundamental biology/biochemistry that’s waiting to be worked out. Maybe even Nobel prize material.
Fame glory and money almost for sure. Possibly Nobel prize material possibly too. I hope UD visitor Dr. Pellionz or one of his friends wins the prize.
I thank you for you time, and the one comment we can agree on.
Salvador
Sladjo asked: How come that bright, intelligent people from scientific community embraced his ToE 150 years ago…?
Answer:
They didn’t. Consider this quote from the Zoological Section of the French Institute on why they denied Darwin’s membership in 1872:
“What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the science of those of his books which have made his chief title to fame-the ‘Origin of Species,’ and still more the ‘Descent of Man,’ is not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous hypotheses, often evidently fallacious.
This kind of publication and these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself cannot encourage.”
“Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., London, 2:400, footnote, 1911″
Makes one wonder how Darwin would do in the new TV game show “Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._Grader%3F
[...] And irony of ironies, it was the greatest YEC scientist, math and physics genius James Clerk Maxwell, whose equations suggested the constancy of the speed of light, and thus Maxwell’s equations unwittingly signed the death sentence to YEC theory. Ah, but the executioner could not quite deliver the fatal blow to YEC…. [...]