# 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