Can Mathematics Explain Evolution? | Episode 2209 | Closer To Truth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ม.ค. 2024
- If life is a vast space of possibilities, then mathematics can engage with biology. Statistics analyze biological data, and mathematical models improve biological theories and reveal hidden commonalties. But could the mathematics of biology touch fundamental realities?
Featuring interviews with Aaron Clauset, Martin Nowak, Paul Davies, and Stuart Kauffman.
▶ All episodes of Season 22 are available now on our website: bit.ly/3QwMzIA
▶ For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free today: closertotruth.com/register/
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶ Free access to Closer To Truth's library of 5,000+ videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
The theme for this season is just fantastic. Each episode title put up, has me looking forward to it.
Consciousness disproves physicalism.
Yeah.
This is why math is important.
Actually, mathematics leaves us wandering in the arid desert of uncertainty about how life started.
Good discussion. Thanks 🙏
Thank you for the video.
The industrial revolutionary mindset is over no one thinks step by step or judges a book by its cover anymore.
Thanks, this one has entered my top ten.
I'd ask to kauffman: if you do not look at the organism, but both at the organism and the environment, isn't this a problem that could be solved or at least clearly stated ?
All matter is alive. Machines. Evolution started when universe appeared.
...Intelligently Evolving Designs....
@@michaelerdmann4447 just recombining, self copying and competing.
Fascinating as always: please keep these great videos coming! You might want to edit the small slip around 17.07 where it is twice said that Titan is a moon of Jupiter (it is of course a moon of Saturn).
Wow, I have a screwdriver on my lamp table. 😂
Word games. "Accidental" is far away from random. Otherwise there would be no prevention from accidents. But there is. Also, Evolution by Natural Selection is unlike Creationists often claim, not a random process. And just because you are incapable to predict or "prestate" (whatever) something, that does not mean it is random. There are mathematical models of biological evolution. It is a family of optimisation algorithms that work and have numerous applications. I suggest, you first clarify what you are talking about, then try to get "closer to the truth".
With respect, one could argue that YOU are playing "word games" .. The definitions of accidental and random are much closer than your "far away" assertion might suggest.. Splitting hairs is a cliche that might apply to your opening claim.. No?
@@Bill..N In Math "a hair" is the difference between zero and infinity. I am neither the one who came up with those words, nor did i claim that math has a problem with describing evolution. I am not playing games as you say. I take truth and science very seriously and i have a very low tolerance for BS. Also: "Definitions" are secondary, especially those based on natural language, as they are always vague. Relevant are the explanations that work. The mathematical explanations for Evolution DO work since ages. They make precise predictions, they are falsifiable, peer reviewed, etc etc. It is called science aka knowledge.
Population Genetics Models: These models examine the genetic composition of populations and how it changes over time. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a fundamental concept in this area, providing a baseline for understanding how various forces like selection, mutation, and genetic drift can alter a population's genetic makeup.
Quantitative Genetics Models: These focus on the inheritance of continuous traits (like height or weight) that are influenced by multiple genes and environmental factors. They help in understanding how such traits evolve.
Phylogenetic Models: These are used to infer evolutionary relationships among species or genes. Models like the molecular clock hypothesis can estimate the time of divergence between species based on genetic differences.
Game Theory Models in Evolution: This approach models the evolution of behaviors through strategies that organisms use to maximize their fitness. The Hawk-Dove game is a classic example, illustrating how aggressive and passive behaviors can evolve.
Agent-Based Models: These are computer simulations that model the actions and interactions of individuals to assess their effects on the system as a whole. They can be used to study complex evolutionary scenarios that involve interactions between many individuals and their environment.
Evolutionary Dynamics Models: These models use mathematical equations to describe how the composition of a population changes over time. They can incorporate elements like fitness landscapes, which visualize how different genetic combinations affect an organism's fitness.
Neutral Theory Models: These models, based on the neutral theory of molecular evolution, assume that most evolutionary changes at the molecular level are not caused by natural selection but by genetic drift of neutral mutations.
etc etc
@silence8806 I agree with nearly everything you had to say in your well written response, friend.. Still in an attempt to KEEP things revolving around this video and what I actually said, random events and accidental events are not so different in understanding the evolution of the species to this point.. ACCIDENTS play a fundamental role in leading to homosapians as an example.. The random eruptions of super volcanoes, meteor impacts, and nearby supernovae (to name just a few) can also be thought of as disruptive accidents, no? All of these can fundamentally influence and redirect natural selection.. Evolution is intimately interwoven with randomness, certainly NOT very far apart. All of THESE influences can indeed be described by math as everything likely can be.. It is those points I wanted to make, and there was no disrespect intended.. Peace to you..
@@Bill..N You can project all kinds of things onto words like "random" and "accident". The best working theory, quantum field theory, is based on probabilities. Nature seem to be made of random events in it's essence. You can call all this an accident. But given the vast space and time of the universe, i don't see the big surprise that life happens and ultimately observes itself. The more you roll the dice, the more probable all patterns imaginable emerge, up to the point, that they become inevitable. It is a matter of space and time. And Evolution By Natural selection or the models for abiogenesis are not even just "rolling the dice". To me, to call this an accident, is misleading.
@silence8806 Sorry, I accidentally sent an incomplete and errant response when my grandsons reached over and managed to SEND it somehow.. Deleted..Response soon friend, good points..
18:18 I love that idea. It also would open many ways to glean the data, in addition to the benefits mentioned.
Go Bluejays!
Odd they didn't mention this notion by its name - Assembly Theory. It can be quantified, and there is a formula.
in physical world it may be a luck. but in ethical world life formation is the worst luck which created endless suffering.
Bad luck is still luck. 🤷♂️
Starting with a worm’s eye view rather than a bird’s eye makes it complicated,, with one dimension only, gross matter, at play. To see it from the perspective of a causal dimension leading to magnetic, electrical, and electromagnetic dimensions, leading to a gross physical dimension based on rates of vibration would upset the view that gross materialism is causal. It will remain complicated until there is a change in perspective on what life actually is: what its origin was and is.
Mathematics = Information
Math encompasses information AND chaos AND entropy.
The problem is one word.
"Explain". And his hidden sister: causality.
There is a elephant in the room.
"Understand" and his brother finality.
I agree that mathematics and evolution is synomous in that mathematics is the language that describes what is what is however you would have to be able to construct all the possibilities to construct the next phase of evolution
What is the purpose of life? It's to "find out" the mysteries of life and the universe.
I am beyond grateful you are here. Blessings.
Hi Sir, I have a simple question. Inside a factory at the end of the shift a supervisor and his co-worker are counting the produced objects, the objects are approximately the size of a tennis ball. It is their daily routine,the worker counts the objects as he takes it from the production lot and puts it inside a bag. The role of the supervisor is to keep watch so that there is no mistake while counting. One fine day, before starting the counting process, the supervisor looks at the lot and writes down some random three digit number as quantity of the produced items, in short he assumes that the actual quantity would probably match with that number. Now the question is what are the chances of that actual quantity matching exactly with that random number?
If the number of produced objects is 1000 or more then the chances the random three digit number matches is zero.
@@johnking5433 And what if it's less than 1000?
@@thomasstuart6861 I didn't provide some crucial details. It's a factory where the production of items is order based, hence the items type and quantity may vary on a daily,weekly or monthly basis. The supervisor has never tried this before, a thaught suddenly came to his mind and he tried to guess the quantity. So here his previous routine experience may not count.
@@thomasstuart6861 You are right, but here the story is real. The guess of the supervisor has come true, therefore the question arised.
@anirudhadhote assuming that the lowest three-digit number is 100 and the highest 999, then the chance that the supervisor guessed the production is 1 / 900. This is only if the actual production is 100 through 999. If the actual production is less than 100 or 1000 and above then the chance that the supervisor guesses correctly is zero.
biological statistics related to probability of quantum energy from wave function?
intelligence from mental space of time and energy in quantum wave / fields?
Interesting to hear these inner thoughts from Schwarzenegger
18:07 an upward movement toward an objective or without any scope at all 🤔
Odd they didn't mention this notion by its name - Assembly Theory. It can be quantified, and there is a formula.
@@RoiHoldenAssembly Theory was only published very recently, probably after this series was well into the production process.
@@RoiHolden yes, it makes perfect sense, from our perspective, that complex molecules are signatures of advanced "living" systems and must be considered as such, unless proven with very high confidence, otherwise... but, these advanced systems are formed, from the ground up, by these very same complex building blocks and the question is still open whether we have an upward or downward movement towards complexity... 'something', if not the Universe itself, must be credited as the 'agent' behind such activity... and my mind goes blank at this point 🎭
@@r2c3 I don't bother with "downward driven movement". Seems like a waste of time.
mental space of energy and time for biosphere?
no, not quite, if we had a phase space of the physical nature of nature, all uses of screw drivers would be in there somewhere, whether it is possible or plausible to state that phase space without error in practice is a different question.
We have all of ...now, time and eternity.... to ponder the Comprehensive Evolutionary Philosophy of Theologically Creative Advance.
sincerely
...technos, teleos, and theos....
probability in energy of mutation?
life inevitable in universe, forms of life from probabilities of energy?
Not only the emergence of new 'evolutionary' forms, but also the emergence of the consciousness that perceives them. Ideas are patterns by definition - not mere accumulations of changes. Nothing is new under the sun.
There never before was a planet wide network of information exchange in light speed. But you say, "Nothing is new under the sun.". You would need several lifetimes just to read what modern science discovers every year.
No Prof. Davies it´s a moon of Saturn.
17:06 exactly
Our level of intelligence is probably like an elephant trunk. But I would guess their are many more trunks than human-level intellects.
Kaffman's take supports life being flexible. Perhaps life needs to exist in many different worlds, and rigid math predeterminism would get in the way.
Not being picky, but Titan orbits Saturn.
So the fact that we are always looking for smaller more efficient technologies and even future models showing homo futurus smaller shows that humans are not this average data. And we can lead towards a different path, maybe self, inner, knowledge.
Humans are not animals, humans are not limited by biological means.
20:05 - “Anything inevitable would require radical rethinking of Neo-Darwinism.” Absolutely. Lamarckian, cellular-plastic Darwin got it right the first time, before because-genes Neo-Darwin was invented (for the latest on cellular/neural plasticity, see, for example, Michael Levin - and plasticity implies association, see ET Walters, ER Kandel, CS Peirce).
25:43 - “Is life accidental or inevitable?” Keyword - Entropy. The persistence of complexity (life) across time is not independent of the creation of complexity. If complexity self-creates & we are here to observe it, then it persists. To understand why, you need to understand entropy. And entropy is, essentially, a mathematical modelling of the tendency to disorder that is at least theoretically measurable. Its most important implication? As it is over here, so too over there. The predispositions that exist over here exist also over there, stars & galaxies away. You need find only one place where life persists across time to conclude that this is a living universe, where life *will* emerge anywhere where the conditions are right. We’re standing on it.
We are dealing with what is alive and how that evolves with mathematics only able to deal with that on a simplistic level.
You are confusing elementary with simple.
@@silence8806 mathematical models for instance are simplifications of reality and may not capture all the complexities of the system being modelled...
@@fortynine3225 I can just repeat myself. You are confused. Models are always reduced to the core of what they describe. That does not mean, that they can't describe arbitrarily complicated systems. An example: The precision of weather forecast computation is less a matter of how complex the formulas are, than how much data you feed them.The more iterations, the closer is the prediction to reality.
@@silence8806 I am not confused. Just a few weeks ago a physicist made a video where she declared that complexity and complex systems..like a human for instance... should be our focus of attention since we do not understand those vey well.
@@fortynine3225 Well, it turns out, you don't need to understand all processes inside human bodies, to predict human behaviour, evolution and a TON of other fields in science. The police is able to predict the focus points of riots (for example), Darwin's theory makes correct predictions, humans arrived at the moon with newtons equations of motion that simplify planets to points in space, etc etc.
Whether intelligence is “more like wings and eyes or elephant trucks” is absolutely absurd, it’s clearly the former, ie a natural proclivity as opposed to a uniquely specific utility.
Well, these gray eminences aren't giving due attention to Roger Penrose. In particular, Can Mathematics Explain Evolution? | Episode 2209 |. Accepting his view of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, then understanding, common to all conscious content, must be independent of computationals. If you then ask, common to whose conscious content, then we are. As personal identities demarked by their own continuity as the inner observer. Penrose doesn't properly describe the datum consciousness, and had he, perhaps he would have recognized continuity of personal identity as at the center, and as a constant in field of conscious content. No matter what I do with my body, its owner doesn't change one bit, despite issuing the commands to move an arm. Or leg. By in that manner violating the 3rd law of motion, equal and opposite reaction: Personal identity is independent of the backwash. So with personal identity at the core then of life, violating the third law such that increasing randomness can instead be increasing order: only an Archimedean point, objective, could Maxwell's Demon in the Machine bring increasing order to life. It's just amazing to me that Davies can't see that the inner observer is the demon in the machine with the scope of our conscious content. Say the Demon, we, has consciousness we aren't aware of and runs the whole show.
Nothing else makes sense. And no one I know really wants to hear it.
What a question. First off, suppose there was no math involved. Suppose for a second that however evolution happens there is no discernable form of math that could tell you anything about where evolution has been or where it was going.
Hoping this video is loaded with corralaries.
We just need better math.
Can chess elucidate Relativity ?
On a lighter note, I'm STILL disgusted Paul Davies shaved his beautiful mustache. Was he jealous or something? Did he catch the mustache writing it's own paper?
First question purposely leaves out the only rational option, the only 2 options being proposed being irrational.
What is the "rational" option? An ethereal finger snap?
Do species get bigger because the succesful ones eat more and the ones that eat less die? Like reversed entropy through evolution, the energy/mass increases of the organism due to small steps of genetic inheritance? This implies either foodintake during lifetime alters the genetic code (through epigenetics) to make big animals have big kids, or the genetic ones for size are the survivors in battle (even though they are more sensitive to food deprivation). So my question is are they big by natural selection due to epigenetics, or due to genetics? Or somehow both in collaboration, that epigenetics turns into permanent genetics? So basically natural selection due to bigger being a better fit, or smaller ones dying because they are small because they don't get much to eat, which means they are bad hunters for food? So natural selection due to direct physical competition (in which size matters) or due to if you eat less because you are a bad hunter this statistically increases the chance of dying of famine? Being big implies having plenty food which can be survivors bias in both ways: being a good hunter for prey (resulting in epigenetics) and being a good deterrent of competition (result of genetics)
If it is of being a good hunter this implies epigenetics came first evolutionary, if it implies being a good competition deterrent this implies genes came first... Although this might differ between plants and animals! Plants are not hunters so then they cannot be formed out of epigenetics first, so their basis must be genetics first. This implies animals came from plants, and developed epigenetics to do active hunting and be good at it
No. Species don't increase in size as a rule. Size increases are nearly always detrimental - they cost a good deal, and impart very little benefit.
Epigenetic traits are heritable without being or becoming genetic changes, for example changes in cell structure that are passed on to offspring, so I think it’s either/or.
@@PhrontDoor the guy in the first part of the video says the exact opposite: animals tend to get bigger as a rule, until it is no longer feasible
@@Robinson8491 Yeah, Copes rule is more of copes exercise in selection-bias. What we really see are that larger clades go extinct most often, and that the points Copes chose were disinclusive of recent times.
So it's basically like saying "look, over here when we had this mass extinction event and only small things were left, and over here things are much larger" instead of going "are most things larger NOW than their clade was all along"...
Birds, for instance, are smaller. We have a few large ones like the ostrich and emu.. bit most are way smaller. In the past, most birds were MUCH bigger than today.
Insects, same story.. heck, the Silurian times we had insects which were bigger than dogs... most insects today are smaller than they were even 10 million years ago.
Mammals are mostly smaller than 5-10 million years ago, especially the primate clades.
Should be talking to Michael Levin and Stephen Wolfram in the same room with Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.
Try getting deeper than the pedestrian view, we can take it !
th-cam.com/video/YNCZf2slA-U/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
instead of trying to explain any of this in mathematical detail, let us just take nature, whatever its workings is like, to be a kind of analog computation of itself, nature would then hold all these answers ofc, it would in a sense know what uses will come into being and what every possible part of its phase space is like, it has to carry that information in its own form to produce it, to find out we would in principle just have to wait. whether we can produce mathematics to describe it faithfully is a question of the same sort, a physical question about natures processes into the future. this means that everything that is possible in the future of life is stored in nature somewhere, somehow waiting to come forth, whether that excludes any counterfactual is both irrelevant and interesting, but if it does those counterfactual animals that will never exist and can never exist in nature are as abstract as arithmetic we will never do and nobody will ever do, platonic at best, non existent at worst.
maybe life from zero infinitesimal time?
Not by itself.
To be able to use mathematics to analyze phenomena DIGITS must be interpreted as representing unique particles with the 4 basic arithmetic operations as the only LAWS OF MOTION determining all interactions among them.
That means: mathematics must be recognized as the only branch of physics that indicates sequence of natural events, while the formulae we design using those 4 operations become our own intervention in the natural process to suit our own purposes.
So there need not exist any "law of nature" to be discovered as the 4 possible are already known and anything else is left for us to design and implement.
Nature is completely malleable. Don't waste your own and other people's time looking for non existent LAWS OF NATURE. Design the laws nature should follow to sustain evil (predation, disasters, diseases ~ which include all violence ~ and death) free life function eternally and then analyze phenomena only to find ways and meams to implement them.
No
The environmental and societal impact of gene expression was completely ignored. A major error.
What's an example of evolution that's not actually adaptation?
I think that's a somehow problematic question because the term adaptation is a part of the definition of the term evolution.
@@karlschmied6218 I've searched for a very long time and every example I've found could be best described as adaptation only, I certainly could be wrong but I've yet to find an example of evolution as it's generally defined.
@@Kevin24018 The problem is that you decide whether to call a certain change an adaptation, or to call it evolution. Lake Victoria was formed where long ago there was only land, and a lot of different kinds of fish are found in the lake but they all share some unique DNA, which makes them what scientists call cichlids. But there are all sorts of differences between them. Some protect their young by holding them in their mouths. Others make a living by eating the scales of other live fish. Some eat algae on the lake bottom, while others have sharp teeth and eat other fish. Do you think lots of different cichlid fish species came from somewhere else and colonized the lake, but hardly any other fish colonized the lake? If not, the alternative explanation is that only a few species colonized the new lake Victoria and the many varieties now there are "evolved or adapted" from the few original kinds. Do you call all these changes "only adaptations"?
@@charlesmrader the definitions of evolution I found are; the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution" I don't see your example fitting either of these.
@@Kevin24018we see in three colours because a duplicated opsin gene on the X chromosome underwent a point mutation. Is that adaptation? The environment didn’t cause the mutation but the advantage it conferred in the environment caused it to become fixed.
Are you dismissing adaptation as “not evolution”. If so why?
Why is it that evolution is suppose to be the explanation for the diversity of billions of species that are believed to have existed but Darwin’s theory only provides deleterious examples of evolution such as cancer? 9:12
God like properties of mathematics how predictable
Comprehensible by humans. Testable and verifiable. Not god like at all.
Consider
The God-gifted Humanity of Mathematics coming forth and going forward.
@@simonhibbs887 Except Simon here when it comes to scientific "testability and verifiability" will ignore science not agreeing with his beliefs regarding materialism - which interesting enough - has not been fully established by science. So, just more blind hypocrisy - the new brand of religious fundamentalism ...
@@jamenta2 >"materialism - which interesting enough - has not been fully established by science."
Sure, but for me materialism (I would ay physicalism) is just an opinion. We've discussed this several times before. It's what I think is most likely to be true, but which has not yet been proven. In fact it may never be proven, or not in my lifetime. That means it's open to refutation, presumably as is your position on this, right? In fact I have in our past discussions laid out examples of criteria on which my physicalism could in practice be refuted.
Atributing creative attributes to mathematics a very seductive doctrine for the naturalists@@simonhibbs887
No ! But this is an extremely problematic situation with so many avenues of trouble that evolution can no longer in good faith be used without addressing the baggage in its closet.
#1 The word itself has become godlike when invoked by a speaker leaves the listener to fill in the missing link blanks of context. It eliminates chances to convey precisely correlated words to things we do know thus dumbing down the room .
#2 everything darwin argued against is now the defining explanational tools used in practice. He opposed ,phenotype and codes all these are contradictory.
Which brings #3 evolutionary biology is acting as if coprenicous model shouldve simply been called the problematic model even after it was disproven.
Don't get me wrong, when we put a scientific box around a system, evolution as a human centric modeling tool of excersize has value and benefit in time and place applications when all else fails.
The death n despair of evolutionary models is on full display under covid just as its been all around the world in many different nations throughout the 18 & 1900s everytime doctors treat it as a physical prescription of realism sticking to evolutionary models instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. In every situation known that dr believed strongly in evolutionary models to guide them for health its blinded them from being able to follow the evidence where it leads because they practice daily on bending the. Evidences interpretation to fit the evolutionary beliefs.
This channel has turned into the mythology of science.
An entire episode - very nice.
You know, nature is brutal, even relentless, and without mercy( from an individual point of view only, not from the collective point of view), but she never lies or deceives; doesn't have some kind of ulterior motive or agenda to fulfill. Nothing in nature is vain. There's a kind of morphing taking place. All these nature(s) or subnatures occursing, and as a procession round the radii. In Soul, there is Love and harmony; in the corporeal organism(body), there is by default survival. This Love and survival (Spirit and matter) is like magnets - you flip one of the two magnets around, and then there's a repulsion. Everybody has Love - all wars are fought because of love: for my family, for my people, for my country, for my God, for my beliefs. It's because of matter that this, 'flipping of the magnet' has happened - where man identifies more with matter, or his body, and moreso than with The Soul; where survival becomes first and Spirit second, or like today, entirely precluded because of the quarrels of the phenomenal plane. Our minds can never breathe, always having to fight to stay afloat - survival.
Blah blah....this condition is incredible. This is a beautiful place and with rich experience, but also can be or become very evil. This place is( or should be) for Divine beings only.
Math and biology doesnt mix but probability of this mututation or that shows we shouldnt be here at all. Life doesnt have an equation. Give us an example
If you have no clue about science, you should not try to lecture others about what math and biology does or not does. Mathematics plays a crucial role in various fields of biology, providing a framework for understanding and modeling biological processes. Some of the most established examples of math in biology include:
Population Genetics and Evolutionary Dynamics: Mathematical models are extensively used in population genetics to study the dynamics of gene frequencies in populations over time. The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a famous example, providing a baseline for understanding allele frequency in a non-evolving population.
Epidemiology: Mathematical modeling is essential in epidemiology for understanding the spread of infectious diseases. Models help predict the course of an epidemic and the impact of interventions. The basic reproduction number (R0) is a key concept derived from mathematical modeling in epidemiology.
Ecological Modeling: Mathematics is used to model interactions within ecosystems, including predator-prey dynamics, competition, and cooperation. The Lotka-Volterra equations are well-known models describing the dynamics of predator-prey interactions.
Neuroscience and Neural Networks: Mathematical equations and models are used to understand how neurons and neural networks process information. The Hodgkin-Huxley model of action potentials in neurons is a prime example.
Bioinformatics and Genomics: The analysis of DNA, RNA, and protein sequences involves extensive use of mathematics. Algorithms and statistical methods are crucial for sequence alignment, gene finding, genome assembly, and predicting the structure and function of biological molecules.
Physiology: Mathematical models are used to understand the functioning of organs and systems within the body. For example, the mathematics of fluid dynamics is applied in cardiovascular physiology to understand blood flow.
Biostatistics: This is the application of statistics to biological fields, vital for designing biological experiments and interpreting the data they produce. Biostatistics is essential in fields like medicine, public health, and genetics.
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: Mathematics is used to describe the body's impact on a drug (pharmacokinetics) and the drug's impact on the body (pharmacodynamics). These models are critical in drug development and in understanding drug interactions.
Molecular Dynamics and Structural Biology: Mathematical modeling is used to understand the physical movements and interactions of molecules in biological systems, which is key in fields like drug design and protein engineering.
Systems Biology: This field integrates various biological data using mathematical and computational models to understand complex biological systems and their interactions.
Each of these examples demonstrates how mathematical principles and techniques are essential to advancing our understanding of biological systems and processes.
Can math explain why only some creatures evolve while others don't?
Actually evolution does never stop as long as there is new born life. You probably mean, that some life forms did not change much in their appearance and behaviour over thousands of generations due to a low selection pressure. Yes, there are mathematical models that describe this. You might look into the Fitness landscape by Sewall Wright.
@@silence8806 I would be more inclined to attribute that evolution which cuts to the chase as available only through ATP, itself only viable after corrosive free oxygen becomes abundant in the atmosphere, requiring the intensive output of creatures which are today unchanged.
@@markwrede8878 Well, mathematics can be used to describe many aspects of evolution, including the role of ATP and oxygen in evolutionary development. Here are some ways this can be achieved:
Population Genetics: Population genetics uses mathematical models to understand how genetic variations in a population change over time under the influence of processes like natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow. These models can be used to study the evolution and adaptation of organisms to their environment, including factors like ATP production and oxygen availability.
Dynamic Systems: The theory of dynamic systems can be used to model complex interactions in ecosystems. This includes the relationship between oxygen-producing organisms and other life forms, and the impacts of such relationships on evolution.
Chemical and Biochemical Models: Mathematical models in chemistry and biochemistry can be used to understand how the presence of oxygen and the availability of ATP affect life processes. These models can show how changes in the chemical environment can influence evolutionary trends.
Computer Simulations: Computer simulations can be used to simulate evolution to understand how various factors such as environmental conditions and genetic changes influence evolution. These can model specific scenarios like the effects of increased oxygen levels in the atmosphere on evolution.
Mathematical Models of the Fitness Landscape: As i already mentioned, the fitness landscape, a concept by Sewall Wright, describes how different genetic combinations lead to different levels of fitness. This can be expanded to examine how environmental factors like oxygen alter the fitness landscape, thus influencing evolutionary paths.
In summary, mathematics is a powerful tool for describing and understanding many aspects of biological evolution, including the complex interplay between biological and environmental factors.
I don’t think he is asking the right questions. Almost everyone he interviewed is dealing with higher level system. To address the topic of mathematics, we need to get into behaviors at smaller scales, such as chemical and molecular. Yes, mathematics apply to systems, including big ones like population genetics, but the big question where the math connection is most important is abiogenesis. This is where observational studies aren’t as useful, and we need to answer whether inorganic systems evolve into organic systems as a function of fundamental physics.
Lol omg the last guy is so silly: so you can't describe evolution with a PDE, well news flash you can't describe everything with only 1 tool in your belt there Mr. Screwdriver 😂
Are modern mathematical approaches even capable of modeling the simplest form of plant life or fungal life? I say no. Math is not sufficiently varied in its extrapolation of meaning and the relationships between the full population of meaning.
Notwithstanding mathematical complexity human understanding is, currently, limited by reason and understanding and sensation.
There may be a mathematical model that is capable of such calculation, the problem is human obtuseness.
The proper measurement or quantum of meaning is required before a model can be developed. Complex models are vain if they provide no predictive component only tautological equivalence.
Human understanding must cognize more than form and function for math to progress to something approaching a proper predictive formula for life.
You should not try to lecture people about science, if you have no expertise in it. There are numerous scientific models using math that describe what is going on in life. And they describe even human behaviour. Also, just because you think plants or fungal are simpler than humans, does not mean, they are less complex. Complexity does not mean, that there are no simple rules or statistical models, that could describe it.
@@silence8806 If you cannot recognize reason then what is expertise? I'm afraid your version of expertise is partisanship. I'm sure the people you think you're defending would defend me. Science is not just agreeing it is being able to recognize where more work needs to be done.
The fact that you left math out of your sermon makes it ...less credible, if not irrelevant. When defending "science" one should at least try to be honest. The fact that you "believe" science has a good grip on models of life or behavior isn't just dishonest, its almost malpractice.
@@kallianpublico7517
_...If you cannot recognize reason then what is expertise?..._
Expertise is, if you have worked in a field and produced applicable results.
_...I'm sure the people you think you're defending would defend me...._
I don't "defend people". And i don't "attack" either. I am just trying to make you aware of errors.
_...Science is not just agreeing it is being able to recognize where more work needs to be done...._
I'm afraid the gaps you think you see are filled in the first semester of any university.
I don't preach. That's why I'm not the one who is dishonest. Everyone can check what I say for themselves. And the models I spoke about describe reality, make precise predictions, and have been tested. Otherwise they would not be considered scientific models.
@@silence8806 Your dishonesty exposes you. What mathematical models did you speak about? Like your expertise nothing specific. Just enough gobbledygook to fool the uninformed. Head back to Harvard your PhD has been annulled.
@@silence8806 I think Harvard just revoked your PhD.
So much triggering going on
Can mathematics explain human stupidity?
Yes , it's called zero 😂
Stupidity, being a subjective and complex human behavior, is typically studied under disciplines like psychology, sociology, and behavioral science. These fields examine the cognitive processes, social influences, and environmental factors that contribute to what might be perceived as "stupid" behavior.
However, mathematics can contribute indirectly to understanding aspects of human behavior, including irrational or unwise actions, through its application in these disciplines. For example:
Statistical Analysis: Mathematics, particularly statistics, is crucial in analyzing data related to human behavior, helping to identify patterns and correlations.
Modeling Behavioral Patterns: Mathematical models can simulate various scenarios in social sciences and psychology, providing insights into potential outcomes of certain behaviors.
Cognitive Science: Mathematical concepts are used in cognitive science to understand and model brain function, which can relate to decision-making processes and potentially to behaviors considered stupid.
Economics and Game Theory: These fields use mathematical models to understand decision-making, risk-taking, and strategy, which can shed light on why people make seemingly irrational choices.
In summary, while mathematics itself does not explain human stupidity, it provides tools and methods that are essential in other disciplines that do study human behavior and decision-making.
@@silence8806 You might as well have provided the short answer and simply said "no".
In truth, we cannot explain anything: the universe is a mystery, life is a mystery, consciousness is a mystery and the evolutionary process that produced all sentient beings including homo sapiens is a mystery. In that context, it would seem rather stupid for a species to be obsessed with power, domination and possessions as Humankind obviously is as evidenced by the fact that it has spend 90% of its time at war during the last 10,000 years of "civilised living".
*Actually math alone proves a creator and destroys the evolution myth.*
Actually math proves everything is a day dream of the Great Koala.
I can say random things too
👍🏾Natural Seletion in Chinese is 物競天（上帝 God）擇 適者生存!!
Spacetime is defined as foundamental form or stage from which all same dimensional beings are generated.
Stephen Paradox:
On the earth that is so tiny the final life form evolved are humans who inevitably believe that in an infinite cosmos "The Lord our God, the Lord is One ( Deut 6:4 NIV ) the ultimate life form evolved through Self-Organization Mechanism of Change-Selection-Survival.
司提反悖論：
在如此微小(無窮小)的地球上通過「變化-選擇-存活的自組織機制(達爾文進化機制)」進化出的人類他們必然相信主是我們的上帝,主是「一(申命記六4)」, 即在無限的宇宙中以同樣方式進化出現的生命終極形態.
Math can explain evolution - distribution of probability can exactly predict, describe and explain evolution. Time lapse is the best optimiser of the rare probability of the existing life forms coming true! let alone other biological mathematics, inc. Fibonacci sequence.
Wrong
@@BM-ek4tt empty comment
Math can attempt to approximate actual evolutionary ...sequence, pattern, logic, and fit.... retrospectively and perhaps even prospectively in the future.
@@BM-ek4tt once the ever-mega-powerful quantum computer comes to reality, it may imitate, digitally, how the cooled earth began to witness the simple carbon, hydro-orxycide, and other elements, working together, evolving into organisms, then flurishing into varietied of living forms, species and then, finally, the parogon of all life - human being! There's a general God's law governing the long proceedings to life's miracle: probability distribution. It might have been otherwise in a larger probability. It is time life of billions of years, and earth's spacious accommodation of enoguh species samples, that, finally pushed the 1 of megs-mega-trillionth probability into true (human beings)
Exactly! For Fabonacchi sequence, it appears again and again in sea shells, also in human being - our ear forms!
You might like a selective prize but not your appearance as a more advanced species.
It is so obvious only evolution has free will.
Why did humans evolve so radically different than all other species despite having such similar DNA?
The changes in us from other primates aren’t all that huge really. Just some more advanced cognitive features to support technology and language. If it hadn’t been our ancestors, I think some other primate group would have done it eventually.
I can see that they are trying very hard to prove their darwinian evolution theory.
The 1D, 2D, 3D of you is natural.
The 0D of you is not-natural.
Regardless, there is a procession. The wiseman states that the procession is actually the regression. Implying God. With this procession, is there more realization, self-realization, harmony... where is all this going to? What sustains all this? Nobody can define energy - except maybe one man. Some say: God is knowing himself to the furthest of the furthest edge. Some say: it is God's nature to give and give and make happen.
Is this about any god or a particular god?
actually its the idiot who puts god in any discussion
Can Mathematics Explain Evolution? Obviously not because chance is involved not only in the probability of a mutation occurring, which can vary in millions of different ways depending on the size of the genetic structure, but because the environment modifies those probabilities randomly. Seeking a divine predetermination of evolution requires a very religious mind.
There is chance, but over a long timeline, evolution seems to lead to growing complexity. So there is no predetermination, but there is the inevitability of more and more complex forms of life - or perhaps you could say that matter itself is becoming more complex over time.
@@wexomixo That's obvious. The ways in which biological matter is organized becomes increasingly complex. But there is nothing that forces it to be so. There is no principle in evolution that states that the forms that survive must become more and more complex. Boundaries are defined by various elements of physics, chemistry, and biology. On a planet that is much hotter or much more gravel, life forms may not be able to go beyond a certain dimension.
@@jfranrivera So, is there any purpose behind it all? Is the universe just a bunch of random stuff that happened, or is the increasing complexity building something?
@@wexomixoyes there is a purpose, study religion to learn it
@@wexomixo Complexity has no purpose and no consciousness. Complexity is just our attempt to explain the process of formation of certain phenomena, but that doesn't mean that complexity is what creates. What is built is the result of chance. Whatever arises is due to the fact that the laws of physics make it possible and arise from the interaction of the objects of nature according to the prevailing forces. It really takes too much imagination to believe that complexity is of such a nature that it has been able to create us "in the image and likeness of God."
1:47.. whats the point of showing the church.. what does that have to do with this video.
i enjoy these videos but its quite obvious robert is hell bent (no pun) on sticking religion mainly
christianity in most of his videos but you can tell he knows it makes no sense but still wants to believe it
for whatever reason?
It's just pandering
Mathematics and Evolution are synonyms.
The Unfolding Natural Laws of the ...absolute, relative and unifying....
Yes. Amazing you understand. Bless you brother. @@michaelerdmann4447
Can you test it using Genetic Programming?
See evolution RNA to DNA. Blessings Brother. Love you. @@jfranrivera
The dogma of religion has dumbed you down.
"Religion poisons everything." - Christopher Hitchens
Mathematics is actually THE biggest defeater of any sort of Darwinian argument for the development of life on this planet
Silly post unless you say why.
Well I’ll start with origins. Turns out that the time it takes to get one single stable protein fold in the entire history of the universe is greater than the time has passed since the Big Bang. So just by this fact alone, a pure chance account of the origin of life is utterly impossible.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life. It's a theory that applies to life after it already exists. Go back to school.
@@hotdaniel_xxx It depends what is meant when one uses the word “Evolution” as it is an ambiguous term. Chemical evolution is what is used to describe life’s origins. So sounds like it is YOU who’s the ignorant one here
@@TyrellWellickEcorp YOU said Darwinian, which is the evolution I described. You're making yourself look foolish arguing anti-science in TH-cam comments. It seems those educational videos you're watching aren't sinking in.
Reproduction is essential for evolution. Not just any type of reproduction will do. A reproduction that is extremely good at making copies is essential. Most changes are negative, but a few are advantageous and therefore more likely to be passed on. But, if the number of changes per copy were too much, the large number of negative changes would cause extinction.
The ability to reproduce such nearly identical copies requires evolution, yet evolution doesn’t work without already being good at making copies.
What gives?
Why do we need mathematics to explain something that doesn't happen?
The answer is obviously no, human-invented notions of mathematics alone can never ever explain any sort of evolution. What can describe evolution is the entire natural science, especially physics and chemistry
You DO realize that philosophy is man-made. And that physics and chemistry are math, right?
Humans DISCOVERED mathematics in the environment and did not "invent" it..Unless of course, we are solely discussing the DESCRIPTORS we use to represent those mathmatical relationships..
@@Bill..N We invented it.
It's a 'sufficient approximation' and 'adequate' rule-set, which we continually re-define. Effectively it's the base-model in our model-dependent realism foundation .
For instance, you could say "what is 1/2 + 2/4" and there are multiple correct answers, like most people would say "it is 4/4" but "3/6" also works for count-over-event (like hits divided by swings)...
And is 1 prime, is 2 prime... is 0 prime.
We not only invented math, we re-invent it all the time.
Certain aspects correspond to non-paraconsistent logical foundationals.
@PhrontDoor NO offense intended friend, but as a matter of discussion, ANY intelligent entities in the universe would have to discover calculus as a DESCRIPTION of the way things move given initial variables. otherwise, they could never launch satellites, rockets, or missiles.. The beginning steps to that process are understanding the observations we make (pre-existing in the environment) of such motions and then DESCRIBING those observations with the language of math.. Mathmatical symbols would vary, but all observant species would discover the necessary natural relationships, yes?
@@Bill..N Yes. And we had about four separate different inventions of calculus. In fact, we had literally two calculus inventions within the same year (newton and liebnitz.
And for models, we have standard mechanics and we have the better lagrangian model (least action integral). It's entirely different from newtonian.
The debate "evolution or creation" is an example of the false dichotomy fallacy. Atheists didn't realize yet, and I have been saying it for years, that the evolution of the species is not an argument against God or the creation of the universe. The evolution of the species supports the idea that an eternal intelligent entity superior to oneself created the universe from self with a purpose and design. The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I will rephrase the atheist logical fallacy to facilitate the understanding. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because "sky daddy" doesn't exist. Atheists don't understand the atheist logical fallacy because if they understood they would abandon atheism to not lie to innocent and vulnerable children. Wouldn't they? Would atheists be capable of deliberately lying to their own innocent and vulnerable children pretending to not understand?. You don't have to believe in God because God is necessary because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. Something exists now therefore something has existed always because from nothing can not be created something. I know reality is eternal. Do atheists know reality is eternal? Why not? There must be a reason. To make sense of reality you have to understand the reason. Either the universe is eternal or what created the universe is eternal. Atheism is the belief immune to arguments that all reality is created, and that's why atheists remark "who created god?". Atheism is blind faith in the impossible. If God exists it is not going to stop existing believing. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Bear in mind I am talking about knowledge that should not be censored in the first place. It is important that you understand you don't have to agree with me and I am suffering the most severe and devastating censorship in history. I hope for God's sake to be understood.
Show me all these atheists who claim that evolution proves there is no god. How many strawmen can you build into one rambling paragraph?
@@thecaretaker407 desperate rubbish. really desperate.
must have taken a long long time to write such fantastical malarkey...well done
Prove the fallacy logically please, without the rant. I have no ideas of anybody that make sense of just sky daddy or picked but the equally absurd Yahweh and Jesus. So there is no fallacy