This article fascinates me but I can't understand it. It seems to me to be as important as say Turing's Universal Machine but the understanding eludes me. How does this relate to math? What is happening? Did mathematics just uncover some fundamental concepts of nature? Is the cat dead or alive? I gotta know.


https://scitechdaily.com/a-window-into-evolution-mathematicians-uncover-universal-explanatory-framework/

You called? :P

I can't help due to my mathematical illiteracy but I'd recommend BoJ for the job.

From the article:

    “Our study considers a process called robust perfect adaptation (RPA) whereby biological systems, from individual cells to entire organisms, maintain important molecules within narrow concentration ranges despite continually being bombarded with disturbances to the system,” Dr. Araujo said.

    “Until now, no one had a general way to explain how this vital process was orchestrated at the molecular level through the vast, complex, often highly intricate networks of chemical reactions among different types of molecules, mostly proteins. We have now solved this problem, having discovered fundamental molecular-level design principles that organize all forms of biological complexity into robustness-promoting, and ultimately, survival-promoting, chemical reaction structures.”



    While I freely admit the ability to formulaically interpret the above passage into the ghetto Spanglish that is my native tongue, I can confidently state that el inestimable Doctór Araujo (are you giving the 'r' in his name the little double-tongue tap it deserves?) has not factored in "luck."

    'Luck' is the key ingredient in the evolutionary process, 'pa que sepas.  Scientists hate 'luck' because it defies quantification.  Also, it can be so iffy...

Luck, especially in things that happen in massively large quantities, is actually pretty easy to quantify. Whether you or I die in the next year, even at our advanced stage of decrepitude, is difficult to predict, unless somebody does something to premeditatedly ends our life, an action generally illegal and frowned upon.

But actuaries can predict how many of us will die in the next year, generally to within one percent or better, barring something quite out of the ordinary, like a pandemic or nuclear war. They just can't predict who is going to die. Insurance companies pay actuaries impressive salaries because their information is both accurate and very valuable to insurers.

And neither do I ...  So it's a tie!

Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears upon first glance that Dr. Araujo (read with the double-tapped 'r' that HER name deserves) has discovered two and maybe three things:

1) Homeostasis,

2) Chemistry, and perhaps

3) the Anthropic Principle.

In short, if the body could not maintain the availability of proteins in a narrow range, they could not interact properly enough to sustain life and we would all be dead.

Subject to correction from more scientifically adept folks, I propose that SHE not be granted a Nobel Prize for this particular piece of work.

--Philomena Cunk (aka Lot's Wife)

You are SUCH a sexathonagroanafart!

When the Universe evaporates in ∏Ŕ² x 10⁹⁹ x 11 years, no one will care that one of your shoelaces is untied, or that I mix up genders and/or metaphors.

If you keep this up, eventually, you won't be able to unclench your fists!

It sounds to me as if it is your fists that are clenched, providing yet more evidence that you are in fact Yosemite Sam, fulminating in the desert after having been outsmarted yet again by a humble lagomorph.

Not to worry. You'll forget soon enough. ;-)

Araujo is a Portuguese name - single tap on the "r". And the "j" is pronounced like the French pronunciation of Joan. Accent on next to last syllable unless otherwise marked.

Ahr-ah-OO-jho

Only double "r"s in Portuguese words are double tapped, unless the R is the first letter in the word. In Brazil, most people skip trilled r entirely and just pronounce it as H - "Rrio" de Janeiro become Hio. Radio and TV announcers like to trill.

Right -- that's the entire basis of my pension. An actuary somewhere has made a bet as to how long I will be expected to live. My intention is to live long beyond that bet. If the powers-that-be don't want to generously pay me during my career, they can pay me long after it's over. ;)

One of my pet peeves - articles about mathematics that don't have the tiniest shred of math in them. The article is borderline incomprehensible, and I hesitate to say which side of the border it is on.

One pretty amazing thing that has happened in recent years is the ability for computer programs to predict the shape of proteins.

Proteins are chains of strung-together amino acids. You can think of the amino acids like tinker toys with little springs on the ends, which, when you connect them together, twist the protein chain into a particular shape.

Generally speaking, it is the shape of the protein that gives it its properties. Think of the coronavirus spike proteins that can lock into proteins in the cell walls in our sinuses and throats and lungs.

Up until recently, the number of proteins that have been computer-mapped as to their shape, used to number in the hundreds, then thousands. Breakthroughts in both technique and in computing power has now put the number of mostly theoretical proteins up in the 100 million range - a breathtaking improvement.

If you need a protein of a particular shape to fit into an existing protein on a virus, for example, having a hundred million candidates in a database vastly improves your ability to find a good match for creating a vaccine.

I'm sure dagny knows more about this sort of work than I do, but when efficiency of an algorithm goes up by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude, that is seriously impressive IMHO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2023 10:32PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Thanks for that. I don't really have anything more to add.

The article said:
>We have now solved this problem, having discovered fundamental molecular-level design principles that organize all forms of biological complexity into robustness-promoting, and ultimately, survival-promoting, chemical reaction structures.”

I don't see how they can claim this exactly. I don't see how they factored in all the zillions of combinations that failed that we have no way of knowing about. Surely there were potential forms of "biological complexity" that weren't so robust. With evolution, contingency is important.

"I don't see how they can claim this exactly. I don't see how they factored in all the zillions of combinations that failed that we have no way of knowing about. Surely there were potential forms of "biological complexity" that weren't so robust. With evolution, contingency is important."

COMMENT: Here is the link to the actual study:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38011-9

Perhaps this helps your understanding. Now, as an expert biologist, can you please explain it to the rest of us?

Much appreciated.

"One of my pet peeves - articles about mathematics that don't have the tiniest shred of math in them. The article is borderline incomprehensible, and I hesitate to say which side of the border it is on."

COMMENT: Here is the complete study, mathematics and all:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38011-9

For the benefit of EB, and all of us, and with the math at hand, can you now please provide an explanation.

I would attempt it myself, but not being an 'expert' like yourself, I would not want to offend anyone.

I look forward to your explanation.

Thanks for your replies. I think I understand this article.

https://theconversation.com/amp/debunking-the-dunning-kruger-effect-the-least-skilled-people-know-how-much-they-dont-know-but-everyone-thinks-they-are-better-than-average-195527

"All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"

That's where it all starts. ;)

Of course, no one has explained anything about your OP yet, which makes this new link of yours particularly interesting.

But stay tuned. I am sure between BJ and Dagny--are resident experts in mathematics and biology--we will have the full explanation shortly.

I gave my explanation. The article has zero math and is borderline incomprehensible. It’s hard to critique or expand on the math content when there isn’t any.

I gave you the entire study, math and all. So the "no math" response is no longer valid. Here it is again:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38011-9

Please explain.

I missed your post upthread. I tend to just scroll to the end to see what’s new.

Yep, plenty of math there, and it even looks like stuff I should understand. It does not look like light reading. I’ll put it on my to-do list.

Henry actually got me to read the dunning-Kruger article, and I think it makes a very good point - that the result that poor performers on a test were very bad at estimating their poor performance, appears to be more an artifact of the the study was designed, rather than an actual finding.

These sorts of errors happen often in studies. I’m not a statistician, but I landed a job for a year as a software person for doctors doing studies. I discovered the doctors didn’t know a lot about statistics, and I didn’t know enough to authoritatively say no, you can’t do that, it is a meaningless test. I was happy to escape from that job.

There was a famous case of the Met Life height-weight charts back in the early 1970s, iirc. As a huge insurance company, they had the data to show how long people with various heights and weights lived.

Their data showed that the heavier you were, the lower your life expectancy. No surprise there. The data also showed that below a certain ideal weight, the less you weighed, the lower your life expectancy. So it appeared that it was indeed possible to be too thin for good health. A bit of a surprise, but OK, people bought that.

The Met life tables were the standard for a long time. They may still be the standard for all I know, but they had to be revised back around 1970.

It dawned on some researchers that maybe being skinny doesn’t necessarily shorten your life. Maybe your life expectancy is low because you have a terminal disease like cancer, and that’s why you are skinny. People were reversing cause and effect with some of the Met Life data. Being skinny didn’t make you die sooner. Dying made you skinny.

When Met Life corrected for that, the ideal weight for best health and maximum life expectancy dropped several percent, making the ideal weight even harder to achieve for most people. It is still possible to be too thin, but that goalpost moved down a lot.

Bummer.

I only use unreal numbers.

The technical name is “imaginary numbers.”

Worst name ever.

Add them to real numbers, and you have complex numbers.

Second worst name ever.

And let’s not forget irrational numbers.

The hostility of the naming tells you how unhappy mathematicians were to have to add these concepts to their repertoire.

How come there is no Nobel prize for mathematics ?

Because Alfred wasn't interested in theoretical pursuits: just things that he thought had immediate practical value for humanity.

Bingo.

About the best we have are the Fields Medal for math and the Turing Award for Comp Sci. The Nobel Prize in Economics has gone to CS or math people a number of times.

In my view the Fields is even more prestigious than the Nobels.