Re: Random (was The NABT controversy)
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Sun, 01 Mar 1998 14:06:35 -0500 (EST)At 04:44 PM 2/19/98 -0400, David Campbell wrote:
>>I like to see the mathematical model which will give rise to the dynamics
>>purported in evolutionary thought. I am afraid that is a monumental task. We
>>cannot even deduce from theory the numerical values of the masses of
>>particles and the numerical values of the coupling constants in physics.
>>These problems are much simpler than those posed by evolutionary theory. Any
>>physicist that can produce a theory which explains such numerical values
>>would get an immediate Nobel prize.
>
>There are several mathematical models that can replicate some of the
>statistically random aspects of evolution. Specifically, there are several
>theoretical models for mutation of a DNA or protein sequence, and empirical
>models of how a particular feature has evolved (e.g., the number of spines
>per whorl on some snails shows an increase in variance but no significant
>trend over time and the size of forams may increase, decrease, or stay the
>same over time). There are many models in population genetics for random
>changes in gene frequency. These by no means approach a model that can go
>from astrophysics to life, but do model the statistical randomness of
>evolution.
Dear David,
Mathematical modeling by computer simulations are used in physics to study
very simple systems--e.g. the existence of solid-liquid phase transitions in
hard spheres (disks). Such models, albeit primitive, do illustrate
fundamental features expected of real atoms, e.g. argon. Are the models you
are indicating equally successful? I doubt it.
Take care,
Moorad