Hoyle’s Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and the Impact of Heavy-Tailed Distributions

T. Fowler
{"title":"Hoyle’s Critique of Neo-Darwinian Theory and the Impact of Heavy-Tailed Distributions","authors":"T. Fowler","doi":"10.9734/bpi/nvbs/v2/4543f","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Physicist and astronomer Fred Hoyle has repeatedly criticized Neo-Darwinism as a flawed theory because of mathematical and statistical problems. His comments have been used by creationists and other opponents of the theory, even though he himself did not support their views. In this paper Hoyle’s critique of one aspect of Neo-Darwinism is analyzed to see what merits it may have. The conclusion is that while Hoyle’s mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value. This may have been due to his belief that such variations would be extremely unlikely, due to an assumption that such variations would be governed by a normal distribution. However, if a heavy-tailed distribution is involved, such variations become feasible. The net result is that evolution in its early stages may have involved large jumps, which, though infrequent, would move it along. The objective of this study is to analyze the impact of Hoyle’s results and how they are affected by modern knowledge of heavy-tailed distributions.","PeriodicalId":272222,"journal":{"name":"New Visions in Biological Science Vol. 2","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Visions in Biological Science Vol. 2","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/nvbs/v2/4543f","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Physicist and astronomer Fred Hoyle has repeatedly criticized Neo-Darwinism as a flawed theory because of mathematical and statistical problems. His comments have been used by creationists and other opponents of the theory, even though he himself did not support their views. In this paper Hoyle’s critique of one aspect of Neo-Darwinism is analyzed to see what merits it may have. The conclusion is that while Hoyle’s mathematics is impeccable, and thus his critique based on them has merit, he did not carry his own reasoning far enough and specifically failed to consider the possibility of large variations in selective value. This may have been due to his belief that such variations would be extremely unlikely, due to an assumption that such variations would be governed by a normal distribution. However, if a heavy-tailed distribution is involved, such variations become feasible. The net result is that evolution in its early stages may have involved large jumps, which, though infrequent, would move it along. The objective of this study is to analyze the impact of Hoyle’s results and how they are affected by modern knowledge of heavy-tailed distributions.
霍伊尔对新达尔文理论的批判和重尾分布的影响
物理学家和天文学家弗雷德·霍伊尔多次批评新达尔文主义是一个有缺陷的理论,因为它存在数学和统计问题。他的评论被神创论者和其他反对该理论的人引用,尽管他本人并不支持他们的观点。本文分析了霍伊尔对新达尔文主义的一个方面的批评,看看它可能有什么优点。结论是,虽然霍伊尔的数学是无可挑剔的,因此他基于数学的批判是有价值的,但他没有把自己的推理进行得足够深入,特别是没有考虑到选择值的巨大变化的可能性。这可能是由于他认为这种变化是极不可能的,因为他假设这种变化是由正态分布控制的。然而,如果涉及到重尾分布,这种变化就变得可行。最终的结果是,进化在其早期阶段可能包含了大的跳跃,尽管这种跳跃很少发生,但会推动它向前发展。本研究的目的是分析霍伊尔结果的影响,以及它们如何受到现代重尾分布知识的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信