A math question for evolutionists., page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 18-1-2009 @ 05:26 PM by monkcaw
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]


reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 06:37 PM by GobbledokTChipeater
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.


reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 07:07 PM by Anonymous ATS
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?


reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 08:14 PM by spy66
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]


reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 08:34 PM by spy66
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]



reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 08:39 PM by theresult
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]


reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 11:24 PM by theresult
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...


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 12:44 AM by pstrron
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.


reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 03:49 AM by Astyanax
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

    {2 x 10^9}{365/5}



    or roughly 1.5 x 10^11 generations.

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


    {1.5 x 10^11}/{5 x 10^3}

    = 1.5/5 x 10^8

    = 3 x 10^7 or 30 million.



  • 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]


reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 09:58 AM by jfj123
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
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
The Genesis Code
  Posted 9 days ago with 4 member flags
Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 9 days ago with 3 member flags
Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags
The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags
A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags
Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 3 days ago with 2 member flags