It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A math question for evolutionists.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
These questions are for the highly gifted math and science people out there in the ATS community. I would like to know a couple of things about biological evolution that I’ve never seen answered and lack the brains to answer myself.

I’ll begin with a simple relation that may very well be meaningless but I think sets up my questions:

If the age of the Earth is ‘X’ (years) and there are ‘Y’ number of species of life on the planet, then there may be a relation between ‘X’ and ‘Y’ that can be shown to support or refute the concept of biological evolution.

For example: let’s say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and there are 50 million species on the planet. Well that averages to one species being created every 90 years.

That’s just an oversimplified illustration at what I’m getting at. I know it’s very faulty; for one thing we have no idea how many species populate our planet. What’s more, I know that the growth of life would be exponential and probably have complex dependence on environments which I have no idea how to express mathematically.

But thinking along these lines brings me to my questions:

1. If evolution is a natural phenomenon, does its progression have a mathematical expression?

2. Knowing this mathematical model can we predict how many species of life should be on Earth?

3. Does the predicted value reflect observed value?

Answering these questions may help with the over-arching issue:

Is it reasonable to believe that the progression of biological evolution could populate the Earth with the number of species that now inhabit it in under 4.5 billion years?




[edit on 18-1-2009 by monkcaw]




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   




Im not a mathmetician but heres my two cents.

1: Everything has a mathmatical expression, finding it is the problem.

2: I imagine the variables and unknowns would be to great to predict, and also IMHO to say the age of the earth and the amount of species on it are related is nonsense (not having a go at you)

3: refer to number 2

Very interesting question though, would someone with half a brain please answer it.
S&F

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I'm agreeing with Europe on this one. I'm no biologist or mathematician but, I think the logic is flawed.

1.) There are far too many unknown variables to develop such a useful equation. From plate tectonics to global scale catastrophies yielding mass extinction, pandemics, changes in global temperatures and environments...to take everything into consideration would be next to pointless. I'm not saying there is no equation, just not a useful one.

2.) The complexity of the equation itself aside, you cannot put a timeframe on genetic mutation, therefore you cannot put a timeframe on useful genetic mutation, and especially not on the amount of time it would take for enough useful mutations across a individual species to develop sub-species....(in my mind qualifying as evolution.)

3..) Therefore....with the complexity of the equation, unknown variables, and indeterminant timeframes for sufficient, significant genetic mutation...no.

Interesting though...but the Earth does not exist with controlable lab conditions.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by monkcaw
 


Sure at the same time you can prove beyound a shadow of any doubt that there is a God, and show me that he created this world and it's lifeforms. I wonder what mathematical explanation is simplier, hmm, keep reading the bible it seems to comfort the sheep and begs the question of the term 'faith".



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by monkcaw
 


To answer question 2: If you use the current number of species on earth to create your mathematical model, then of course you can't use your model to predict how many species should be on earth.

All you will get is your original number which you used to come up with your model. But you could predict how many species will be on the earth in (say) 1000 years.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
ahh What a great thing !!

Today i was walking the shop for some smokes trying to understand what it was that i had found and if it even made any sens "practical application"

I think you just answered it maybe lol or atleast i could help.

Evolution is mathmatical.. it is based on some rules we all i know well and one is symmerty..

Now as you said we dont know the value of enviromental impacts so we can use a paramater for it.. 1 and 0

Now .. the thing that struck me was the way you said we can and should be able to predict our own evolution WHY???

becouse math loops and so does life "it self replicates"



I need to work on this more but very very very interesting..

i have 2 issues with my own theory...

aliens and god... they are my unkown values "like ur eviroment one"

but LIFE is real correct? so we can base mathmatical understands "such as the great question you are asking"


Evolution Should Cylce as its life "has a patten"




S+F



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by monkcaw
 


if it was mathmatical then wouldnt that be creation instead of evolution? cant control matter at the speed of light in numbers?



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Math is a relative to infinite zero.
To get your answer you need to figure out how much matter that exist within space and finite that can create and sustain life her on earth. Then you can figure out how many dimensions a life form can have in a 4th dimension which we live in her on this planet. Then you can figure out how many dimensional life forms that can live within the laws of our environment.

You can use math to figure out a shape that a living cell can have if you know what matter that is needed to keep the dimension a live. Or give it life in the first place. You have to know about the mechanisms that is needed to make it work. And those mechanisms is a relative to zero or infinite.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Yes but the zero in math has a value!!!!!

I have been trying to say this for like AGES

infinity and math and everying LOOOOP

i aint even got a clue why.. but its looking me in the face

infact i dont even know what question to ask anymore or how to use what i know..

the aspect of the loop is being alive.. inside it, but asking what the loop is gets you nowhere...becouse its infanit

But thats the good thing becouse if it all LOOOPs we can indeed work out cycals of the loop..

like a calander is numbers

life is doing the very same thing... everything loops

your death is a loop being alive is a loop looopy looopy lol

its very amazing infact



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 


Yes zero is a always within math. Its just that we dont think about it when we do math. Zero is the main platform in all math. Its the main space to put in a equation. Just like space is needed to put in a matter.

Yes but the mechanism of life is a number related to the infinite. The only thing that is infinite is space. And everything is limited to what is put into the dimension space. And all living things is limited to the matter that is existing within it. And we all know that matter is not infinite. Because it is not related to space. If you break down a matter to its basic state is still will be inside a dimension space.

A finite matter cant travel in a infinite loop. It will break down and become something else. A living cell that dies is machine that stops working. It becomes dead matter. It dose not become a machine in a new living cell. It only becomes a matter to help sustain other living machines.

If you take a rock and make it into something else like glass. It will never become a rock again or back to the same dimension it had before the change.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Yes but the mechanism of life is a number related to the infinite. The only thing that is infinite is space.



Yes it is!! the number infinity is infact the value of being alive.. may sound crazy and i have tried to prove this and still am
..

I know i can prove it i just cant get people to understand it in words i use..

Space is not infact infaniant but being alive IS.. now im not sure why.. becouse im still confused with what the loop mechanism IS
im not going to question why it is but i do want to understand how we get from odd numbers to even numbers and what they represten as basic paramaters..

Please check out my "are we in something alive" thread

Becouse i spotted the are we living in a cell...

my theory shows infact we ARE infact in a cell of some kind



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 


Yes!!! zero is a always within math. Its just that we dont think about it when we do math.

Zero is the main platform in all math. Its the main space to put in a equation. Just like you need space to put in a matter. Matter is math.

Ok i cant prove that space is really infinite but it sure is big
And all the matter that exist is within it. And if we lose space we lose matter. And how can life be infinite and space not!

Space must have come first. Then came matter and life.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
haha i love this question!!

my brain hurt alot getting the answer!!

Viewing life is a creation of matter and infinfity.. but there is a catch a very BIG catch

You die...lol ends the loop

Now with the end of this looop we see "infiinty" we can create a universe.. if we lived long enough becouse math says it..

i have watched and listend and studied the understanding of it all... its so bizzar its unreal..

But one question ALLLWAYS stud in my way "WTF IS MATH"???

math is just our understanding of the loop... nothing more a deseripton a arty picture..

you need to be alive to "see" the loop... We neeeeed to stay alive to affect or infact Relpicate the loop...

ie our job is to infact MAINTAIN this very thing we are inside..

crazy heh hehehe
we can only do that being alive!! infinty and being alive are BOTH the same thing..

yin / yang

going to edit:

ok in math kinda way it may seem odd if you read it.. here goes

life = being alive viewing everyday stuff..
Universe = infinant "no and yes"
why? = becouse it loops

what loops? infinity does? yep u betcha "love u palin".. neways

the very fact we are alive is a product of what? a loop...

forget god.. hes pointless here.. lets think more about the workings of the universe as we understand them in basic forms 1 apple plus another apple makes 2 apples.

that has gave rise to every understand of everything other than life itself..

why? becouse we seem to forget what we are infact looking AT..

USER > math > outcome

person > question > outcome

all with math yes?

try this it works better

Math > person > qestion > outcome

Math > made me > made me ask the question > gave me outcome

u see?

we are the very same thing we question "math".. or atleast the infinity part of the very same tool we use to find a question that we already know the answer to..

its called staying alive "stay in the loop at all costs"

or what would infact be the point of being alive?

why do you eat? to keep the loop going "your very exsistance" simple but so complex..

20 years i wondered in the dark.. and now im free


[edit on 18-1-2009 by theresult]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I don’t think you can really apply math to a timescale for evolution because it’s not consistent. There are too many things we don’t yet know about the history of the earth to make an accurate prediction. You only use math when you have the correct statistics.

For example we can’t tell how many offspring are produced per species during the past few billion years, so we can’t say this Dinosaur had so many offspring every season so during 10,000 years that population would equate to this much. Can’t be done.

Also you have to put in environmental conditions that affect life in different ways. We don’t know exactly how many earthquakes or hurricanes or volcano eruptions etc happened over the past billion years, so we can’t take accurate predictions on how many birds or plants died in natural disasters.

As well as the process of evolution itself, we haven’t found every single fossil of every single species of life, so we cant determine exactly which creatures became extinct through natural selection and how that would affect an over all outcome of a math prediction concerning the population of life on the planet.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
I don’t think you can really apply math to a timescale for evolution because it’s not consistent. There are too many things we don’t yet know about the history of the earth to make an accurate prediction. You only use math when you have the correct statistics.

For example we can’t tell how many offspring are produced per species during the past few billion years, so we can’t say this Dinosaur had so many offspring every season so during 10,000 years that population would equate to this much. Can’t be done.

Also you have to put in environmental conditions that affect life in different ways. We don’t know exactly how many earthquakes or hurricanes or volcano eruptions etc happened over the past billion years, so we can’t take accurate predictions on how many birds or plants died in natural disasters.

As well as the process of evolution itself, we haven’t found every single fossil of every single species of life, so we cant determine exactly which creatures became extinct through natural selection and how that would affect an over all outcome of a math prediction concerning the population of life on the planet.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by andre18]


You only use math when you have the correct statistics.


statisitcs came from math.. look at the words you are using???

You can not have one without the other...

Please understand the OP and what im trying to say here...

if evolution is natural "even tho we are not"..

the thing the aliens or god left out is the clue.. the biggggest clue

being alive..

I give being alive a value in math>> loook at my sig??

do you think i said 1+1=3 becouse im crazy??? lol

the 3 = YOU being ALIVE to even use mathmatics...



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
lol you’re right, What I mean is you can’t even have the right statistics without the right information because the math you use to figure out the statistics in the first place is inconsistent with the information, if we don’t know every little thing about our planets history. – does that make more sense?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
yes it makes sens

im so pragmatic in how i think and it gets up others backs.

instead of me talking alot

i made a post on this very aspect.


my main point is we are in something very real and math is showing us something we have failed to grasp..

wtf is math

?

now you see why i question math and my understanding of theory when it is based on the same thing i question.

and it all relates to the OP

it must have a cycle... MUST becouse they are the rules of the game...

we can predicit it becous we are alive to do so...

ill shut up




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
The only mathematical model that I know of that can be applied is that of random chance. You know...flip the coin. The problem occurs when the random chance goes beyond 1 to the 50th. If using random chance to predict the possible outcome in a given period of time (high rate of sequencing the coins), time becomes an issue as in an inadequate amount.

Secondly, if your probability states anything above 1 to the 50th, beyond which nothing can occur, your left with no chance. It has been said that for life to form on Earth was a 1 to the 2,000,000th chance. That by the way is a 1 with 2 million zeros behind it for a one off chance. Want to take the odds? Some will say, well its still a chance even if there is no chance mathematically possible. Something along the lines of monkeys, type writers and Shakespeare.

Stating that life is here as proof has in fact proved nothing but curricular thinking. I think professor Hoyle put it more aptly. To think evolution happened by random chance is the equivalent of a Texas tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional 747 jet airliner out of the junk therein.

Now you can argue with professor Hoyle regarding random chance and evolution if you so desire. I am sure the math will speak for itself and on his behalf.

Another poster did point out that we could predict the remaining species in the next 1000 years, just not the starting point.

Either way good questions.
Should get people thinking.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by monkcaw
 

If the age of the Earth and the number of species on it are in any way related, then one could certainly find a mathematical expression for the relationship. Unfortunately, they are not. Catastrophic events produce mass extinctions in particular geographic areas and even on the planet as a whole. There is also a host of other less extreme but equally unpredictable factors affecting the number. We can allow for them statistically, but the result would be a formula that predicted nothing.

However, the thread title and its placement in the Origins & Creation Conspiracy Forum suggests that there may be more to this question than meets the eye. Could it be an attempt to claim that Earth is not old enough to have produced such a vast diversity of species through the mechanism of evolution by natural selection?

If so, it cannot succeed; Earth is more than old enough to have brought forth all her living progeny, and more.

And here is the proof.

Begin with one species.

Assume one successful new speciation event per species every 5,000 generations. I am using the figure 5,000 because in human terms this takes us back roughly 100,000 years (assuming 20 years per generation), and that is more or less the time at which the species Homo sapiens is thought to have originated. If these figures are absurdly wrong, someone with specialist knowledge is most welcome to correct me.

Obviously different species have different life-spans, so the length of time equivalent to 5,000 generations is a variable. Let's call this variable G.

Let the number of species alive on Earth at any time Gn be Sn.

Okay; we're set to go.

  • Let life first appear on Earth. It consists of one species. At this time G = 0 and S = 1

  • At G = 1, the first speciation event occurs. S = 2

  • At G = 2, S = 4...

  • ...and so on. Assuming no extinctions, the number of species doubles every 5,000 generations.

  • Thus the number of species Sn at G = n is given by the good old geometric progression formula

    Sn = S1.Q^(Gn-1)


    where S1 =1 and Q, the common ratio, = 2. Therefore

    Sn = 2^(Gn - 1)



  • Now, the first life appeared on Earth about four billion, or 4 x 10^9 years ago.

  • For the first two billion years or so, the only life around was single-celled and probably didn't survive longer than a couple of days. Let's say five days. That gives us

    [align=center][2 x 10^9][365/5][/align]

    or roughly 1.5 x 10^11 generations.

  • Therefore, G for the first two billion years (let's call this Ga) =


    [align=center][1.5 x 10^11]/[5 x 10^3]

    = 1.5/5 x 10^8

    = 3 x 10^7 or 30 million.[/align]

  • Now by our formula Sn = 2^(Gn - 1),

    Sn = 2^29,999,999



    or (writing in longhand, so to speak) a grand total of

    200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 species



    And guess what, kids, we haven't even got to the Cambrian yet. There's a whole 'nother two million years to go...


Of course, this ridiculously large number of species never existed. All species become extinct sooner or later; only a select few survive what Darwin called the winnow of nature. But - even allowing for enormous errors of estimation - it is clear that there has been ample time, not only for the evolution of the 1.75 million species that now live on Earth, but also for all the species that have gone extinct, including the three Great Dyings (Precambrian, Permian and Cretaceous) in which large fractions of all living species were extinguished.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by monkcaw
 


There are simply too many variables. Everything that has ever interacted in any way with the way anything/everything has evolved on earth, would need to be considered a variable before it would be possible to come up with an equation.

Neat idea but currently impossible to pull off.

I like the mental exercise the OP has put forth however



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join