This paper gives a very personal look at how mathematics might augment science in understanding the cosmic framework, and contribute to the debate between biologists and religious fundamentalists over evolution and intelligent design. Mathematics and science have quite distinct histories and methodologies, even though they mutually reinforce each other. I will argue that mathematics provides us with good reasons for being open-minded about the possibility that the world incorporates a ‘cosmic intelligence’–without being too precise about what this might be and what form it might take (or have taken). And I hope along the way to show you some really interesting but elementary mathematics related to a beautiful discovery by Lester Ford 70 years ago about circles associated to rational numbers. Oh, and I also want to cut down free will.
I found this to be very, very interesting. The Stern Brocot Tree is really fucking cool, and I haven’t revisited for quite some time the idea that our universe is entirely laid out, from its beginning to its end (if there are any of either), with its course necessary by logic and mathematical fact. (I left Christianity because I woke up one morning and had an epiphany about that (which sounds like total bullshit, admittedly, but it did happen).)
I’m curious now if there is an alternative, but nonequivalent, way to structure logic (I’m doubtful.), or if there are other axioms, which, again, aren’t equivalent to those we typically use, which imply a different and still non-self-contradictory universe.
And I’m also curious, as I’ve been for a while, if just the axiom “the universe exists” is sufficient for everything, or if there are a handful of other axioms, or if even any axiom is necessary—perhaps our universe is logically equivalent to true? (Obviously I haven’t thought very much about those possibilities. I don’t know if the concepts of true and false need some axiom, or what.)
I have deep respect for mathematicians, but I’m really sorry to say this but this paper reeks of all kinds of ignorance. The whole “A Few Ruffles” section are merely objections, all of which have been debunked before. This paper is no different than the ID teach the controversy crowd which doesn’t know jackshit about evolution, or haven’t researched into modern findings and evidence, and yet act as if they can make a valid objection. If mathematics is something you want, mathematics is something you shall get.
Let’s examine the ERV placements in the genome of a human and a chimpanzee. ERVs are about 300 base pair long viruses which insert themselves into the genome of the host. If the ERVs reach a gamete, then the offsprings, and their offsprings, and their offsprings would have these same ERVs, in the same placement in the genome. Keep this in mind.
Both the human and chimpanzee genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. So if there was one pair of identical ERVs in the same placement in both the human and chimpanzee genome, the probability of that without a common ancestor to pass on these ERVs would be (1/3000000000)*(1/3000000000), or (1/9000000000000000000), or (1/(9*10^18)). The human genome is about 10% ERV, LINE, and SINEs, most commonly the Alu sequence. Out of that 10% of ERVs, 40% of the humans’ and chimpanzees’ match up both in base pair sequence and in placement. So let’s calculate the probability of both species obtaining said ERVs without a common ancestor
This is equal to the following.
That’s a 1 divided by a 1 with 7581697 0s after it (I would type it out, but that’s equal to about 2432 pages of 0s on single-spaced, font size 10, times new roman with no commas or spaces in between the 0s). That’s a mathematical improbability so great that it is pretty much conclusive in falsifying the claim that humans and chimpanzees cannot have a common ancestor. Ergo, humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor. This validates evolution.
(sources: 1, 2, 3, 4)
And that is why if you study mathematics, it’s almost impossible to justify a non-belief in evolution, which stands in direct contrast with intelligent design, based on math alone. Not to mention, within science, deduction takes 2nd place to induction, and mathematical deduction cannot invalidate repeated observation and following inductions.
Basically, the whole paper is someone who is out of their league talking about things which are outside of their intellectual grasp because they haven’t done the research (notice lack of citations during their objections to evolution) to present and intellectually honest argument. Thank you very much.