Evolutionary theory cannot be falsified; validity of math (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 09, 2018, 23:22 (2265 days ago) @ David Turell

Theoretical math studies of evolutionary processes and prob ability should come with grains of
salt:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/solution-evolutionary-math-and-just-so-stories-20180907/

"How much stock should we put in mathematical models of evolution that have not been validated by rigorous empirical data?

***

"Such models can stimulate discussion and further research and may eventually lead to a deeper understanding of the evolutionary process. But as nonspecialists who follow cutting-edge scientific research, how much stock should we put in mathematical models of evolution that have not been validated by rigorous empirical data? Here is a partial list of caveats worth applying to all evolutionary claims. I am sure that evolutionary biologists could add many more.

"The conclusions of purely theoretical models, whether qualitative or mathematical, should be treated as plausible and interesting speculations. Evolution is a contingent, historical process. That something could possibly happen does not mean that it did happen.

"Any attempt to generalize the model beyond its restricted domain must be carefully and skeptically examined. The conclusions may be true but may apply only in circumstances so unusual as to have had no historical importance in evolution.

"Conditions under which evolution took place should be shown to be effective in the “environment of evolutionary adaptation,” not under conditions as they are now. Environmental conditions change, and the contribution to fitness by a given trait or mutation will vary over time, as Mark Pearson commented.

"Our minds are naturally drawn toward simple single-cause explanations as we discussed in a previous Insights puzzle column. We should resist the lure of Occam’s razor in subjects as complex as evolutionary biology. Rather, every theoretical model should be treated as a plausible contributor to the actual evolutionary story, which is likely to involve the sum total of many diverse and sometimes contradictory scenarios. Empirical research in evolution should try to assess the degree to which each model contributes to the picture.

"Only rigorous empirical work that shows consistent and mutually supporting results in empirical fields such as paleontology, field biology, biochemistry and genetics can establish the true course of evolution.

"Finally, conclusions about the evolution of traits should apply universally to all or almost all members of a species. This is especially true in elucidating the evolution of human traits. If the traits or their mechanism of evolution are not found across most or all ethnic populations, they may be the results of culture rather than biology. It is worthwhile to try to find exceptions or opposite practices somewhere within the world’s diversity of cultures and figure out why the hypothesized pattern or mechanism was not successful.

***

“'Evolutionary stories like the grandmother hypothesis are easy to construct from mathematical models, but how well do they reflect reality?” Realist commented, “About as well as physics hypotheses constructed from mathematical models do.” I beg to differ. I think single-cause models have a far greater chance of succeeding in physics than in the complicated process of biological evolution. The “soft sciences” are soft because nonlinearity and multifactorial causation run rampant in them, far more so than in the hard sciences."

Comment: Evolution, as a science, is extremely soft. This cautionary article should be taken to heart. All math studies are soft theoretically as they start with some suppositions at the start in the arena of evolution, a process we have not observed and try to deduce from existing evidence which is at the end point of the process.