Do it: 2013 Workshop for Young Researchers in Mathematical Biology

I think the operative phrase is supposed to be "Early Career" rather than "Young". In the Federally-funded world we don't want any hint of age discrimination. That's probably what you meant, anyway. While I was in graduate school about 1/4 of the grad students were "non-traditional", and hence not in their 20s. (But we never asked!) Check with your Admins.

Looks like a great workshop! In the atmospheric sciences there are a number of us who wished we had time for a solid course in Statistics. I imagine that Stats would be quite valuable in Biology.

I've never understood why math is in any way related to investigating and discovery and invention relative to nature.
math is just a language of order in the universe and really just a shadow of reality.
It does not help origin subjects as being a thing of order it presumes constancy.
Therefore it doesn't make a case for evolution where the critic questions that biology is constabnt as opposed to manipulated by a creator or other mechanisms.

Carl Drews said: I think the operative phrase is supposed to be "Early Career" rather than "Young". In the Federally-funded world we don't want any hint of age discrimination. That's probably what you meant, anyway. While I was in graduate school about 1/4 of the grad students were "non-traditional", and hence not in their 20s. (But we never asked!) Check with your Admins. Looks like a great workshop! In the atmospheric sciences there are a number of us who wished we had time for a solid course in Statistics. I imagine that Stats would be quite valuable in Biology.

I'm not so much a mathematical biologist, as a math student with an interest in the subject, but no formal study in biology beyond the freshman course. Is there anything I could get out of this, or is it more oriented toward teaching math to biologists?

Also, to Mr. Byers: the best example I can think of for the importance of math to the sciences is Noether's deep result regarding the relationship between invariances (e.g., the laws of physics don't change with time or place), and conservation laws. You can learn there's a relationship, but it takes a familiarity with the calculus of variations to really understand what's going on there.

mharri said: I'm not so much a mathematical biologist, as a math student with an interest in the subject, but no formal study in biology beyond the freshman course. Is there anything I could get out of this, or is it more oriented toward teaching math to biologists?

Also, to Mr. Byers: the best example I can think of for the importance of math to the sciences is Noether’s deep result regarding the relationship between invariances (e.g., the laws of physics don’t change with time or place), and conservation laws. You can learn there’s a relationship, but it takes a familiarity with the calculus of variations to really understand what’s going on there.

mharri said: I'm not so much a mathematical biologist, as a math student with an interest in the subject, but no formal study in biology beyond the freshman course. Is there anything I could get out of this, or is it more oriented toward teaching math to biologists? Also, to Mr. Byers: the best example I can think of for the importance of math to the sciences is Noether's deep result regarding the relationship between invariances (e.g., the laws of physics don't change with time or place), and conservation laws. You can learn there's a relationship, but it takes a familiarity with the calculus of variations to really understand what's going on there.

Robert Byers said: The math would still just be shadowing the reality. If the reality was different, say from a act of God, the math would not be resistant to the act. I'm diminishing the importance of math relative to , it seems as I read, the high status unrelated science subjects give it. I don't see how its very important at all in most things dealing with studying nature. Just this and that. It doesn't help evolutionary biology in its claims.

phhht said: (Robert Byers,) You don't know anything math, do you.

Henry J said:

Also, to Mr. Byers: the best example I can think of for the importance of math to the sciences is Noether’s deep result regarding the relationship between invariances (e.g., the laws of physics don’t change with time or place), and conservation laws. You can learn there’s a relationship, but it takes a familiarity with the calculus of variations to really understand what’s going on there.

The guy you addressed that to seems to think that the various sciences are actually separate from each other (or at least that biology is somehow independent of the others; it's as if he doesn't know that both organisms and rocks are made of atoms and molecules). He routinely ignores the fact that they each describe aspects of the same universe, and that the described objects interact, often strongly, with each other. (Objects in nature simply have no respect for human classification schemes.) One could point out that mathematics can be used whenever the subject matter contains regularities that can be measured or counted, but he'd probably ignore that, too. Henry

Robert Byers said: I agree OBJECTS in nature being classified by man are innately unlikely to be accurate. The bible says life comes just from Gods spirit suddenly breathing on what was nothing. The rest also some equation. Yes measuring or counting is the essence of math and so can be applied to everything. Yet i don't see it contributes anything to most things suudied. Counting fleas on the dog doesn't help rid the dog of the fleas or make any difference. The various subjects like biology and geology are separate from each other and can't be used as evidence for conclusions about each other. Just in a secondary way. Geology is the foundation for the claims of biological evidence for the truth of evolution. A whoopps in methodology accuracy of too long a time now.

Robert Byers said: Yet I don’t see it contributes anything to most things suudied. Counting fleas on the dog doesn't help rid the dog of the fleas or make any difference.

Robert Byers said: Yes measuring or counting is the essence of math and so can be applied to everything.

Lots of hypotheses in science make predictions about the frequency of something, or the percentage of some component of something else. Confirming or dis-confirming such predictions is then essential to that science, and requires measuring (or at least counting) the relevant quantities. This includes biology. Yeah, I know that stuff in biology is often much more contingent on environment than is stuff in chemistry or physics, and experiments in chemistry and physics can often be simplified so as to depend on only one or a few variables, and that's hard to do in biology. (Chemistry is of course a somewhat more elementary subject than is biology.)

Henry

The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. -- John von Neumann

It is one of the habits of the mathematically illiterate to deny the importance or usefulness of mathematics. I did it myself, when introduced to ordinary flat trigonometry. Having understood that the sine of an angle of a plane right triangle was the ratio of the opposite side of that triangle over its hypotenuse, I was asked to use the sine of an angle greater than ninety degrees. I absolutely brainfroze and balked, because it was obvious that there could be no such thing. No plane right triangle could contain a second ninety degree angle. I protested that there was no point in theoretical speculation about things that could not possibly exist, according to the very same theorems about triangles that I had learned with such labour in elementary school.

My protests were, of course, ignored. I flunked, because I simply couldn't see what on Earth the man was going on about, but that in any case the idea was utterly pointless and contrary to reality, and I wasn't going to waste my time with it.

Even irrational numbers weren't such a problem, because I could see that pi was a real ratio, although I snickered quietly to myself about how the mathematicians could never get it right. Some time later, I read a popular article about the square roots of minus numbers, and came to the conclusion that the whole structure of number theory was false. It was based on an obviously false premise - ie that there is such a thing as number, other than an adjectival property of real objects. That is, negative numbers do not actually exist at all, and are nothing more than the fevered speculations of people who didn't actually have anything real to do, and that their square roots are the same, but compounded to a ridiculous degree.

But that's a mathematical blind spot I have. I know it's there, and I know it's a disability. Byers seems to be proud of his, and thinks it's an advantage.

Bridges, skyscrapers, spacecraft - and bacteria, plants, animals and everything else is made of the same stuff, atoms. That's why math works, all the time. If your math is right, the answers are right!

But you cant explain that to a religoius fundamentalist that place his interpretation and faith in the bible above reason and facts. The subject of Noah and the flood was recently debated in another thread here, and
Stevaroni said here something very much along the same lines I have been thinking for many years.

The fact that fundamentalists ignore such obvious evidence of the absurdity of the Noah flood myth boggles my mind - and is a powerful demonstration of how fundamentalism atrophies the mind.

Robert Byers said:

Henry J said:

Also, to Mr. Byers: the best example I can think of for the importance of math to the sciences is Noether’s deep result regarding the relationship between invariances (e.g., the laws of physics don’t change with time or place), and conservation laws. You can learn there’s a relationship, but it takes a familiarity with the calculus of variations to really understand what’s going on there.

The guy you addressed that to seems to think that the various sciences are actually separate from each other (or at least that biology is somehow independent of the others; it's as if he doesn't know that both organisms and rocks are made of atoms and molecules). He routinely ignores the fact that they each describe aspects of the same universe, and that the described objects interact, often strongly, with each other. (Objects in nature simply have no respect for human classification schemes.) One could point out that mathematics can be used whenever the subject matter contains regularities that can be measured or counted, but he'd probably ignore that, too. Henry

I agree OBJECTS in nature being classified by man are innately unlikely to be accurate. The bible says life comes just from Gods spirit suddenly breathing on what was nothing. The rest also some equation. Yes measuring or counting is the essence of math and so can be applied to everything. Yet i don't see it contributes anything to most things suudied. Counting fleas on the dog doesn't help rid the dog of the fleas or make any difference. The various subjects like biology and geology are separate from each other and can't be used as evidence for conclusions about each other. Just in a secondary way. Geology is the foundation for the claims of biological evidence for the truth of evolution. A whoopps in methodology accuracy of too long a time now.

The various subjects like biology and geology are separate from each other and can’t be used as evidence for conclusions about each other. Just in a secondary way. Geology is the foundation for the claims of biological evidence for the truth of evolution. A whoopps in methodology accuracy of too long a time now

More scientific views of fossils emerged during the Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci concurred with Aristotle's view that fossils were the remains of ancient life.[42] For example, da Vinci noticed discrepancies with the biblical flood narrative as an explanation for fossil origins: "If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores. And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks...."

Here is a question for you Robert. How did Mendel discover the basic principles of inheritance? Did he use any math? How did Morgan verify and extend the principles that Mendel discovered? Did he use any math? How is modern genetic counseling done? Do they use any math?

No wonder this guy claims that genetics is atomic and unproven! Too bad for him the rest of the world knows better.

Some more questions for you Robert. Do you balance your checkbook? Do you figure out your taxes? Do you calculate a tip for the waiter at a restaurant? How do you determine how many miles per gallon your car gets? How do you know how many square feet of carpet you will need to cover the living room floor? If a quarter pounder and a third pound hamburger are the same price, which one is the better buy? If two trains leave the station at the same time, which one are you going to get on? How many bones are there is a gallon of ice cream?

See Robert, the entire world revolves around mathematics. It is virtually impossible not to know this and survive in modern society. So which is it Robert? Still sticking to your story? Still claim that maths is not important because you is a biologicals? Or are you willing to admit that you are just spouting ignorant nonsense again?

As for your other bullshit about the different areas of science, once you have shown that you know the first thing about any science, maybe someone will care about your opinion. Of course, if you can't do any math, you are just as likely to pass any science course as you are to pass an english course now aren't you?

There's exactly one interesting thing about Robert Byers.

It's interesting that the basic ideas he expresses are no stupider than the same ideas, when expressed in a more slick way, by a professional science denier.

Byers will simply say anything to contradict the theory of evolution. One minute he defends some goofy mathematical function by Dembski. The next minute, faced with legitimate applications of math, he denies that math can be useful. Self-contradiction is no problem, as long as each individual statement is also seen as contradicting real science.

He differs from other ID/creationists only in grammar and spelling.

harold said: There's exactly one interesting thing about Robert Byers. It's interesting that the basic ideas he expresses are no stupider than the same ideas, when expressed in a more slick way, by a professional science denier. Byers will simply say anything to contradict the theory of evolution. One minute he defends some goofy mathematical function by Dembski. The next minute, faced with legitimate applications of math, he denies that math can be useful. Self-contradiction is no problem, as long as each individual statement is also seen as contradicting real science. He differs from other ID/creationists only in grammar and spelling.

harold said: There's exactly one interesting thing about Robert Byers.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: Yet I don’t see it contributes anything to most things suudied. Counting fleas on the dog doesn't help rid the dog of the fleas or make any difference.

Actually, yes it does. Assuming you want to actually know why the dog has fleas, how to get rid of the fleas, indeed, if the even has fleas in the first place, then having a count of the fleas involved would tell you a lot. If you had several data points it would tell you where the dog was getting his fleas. If he consistently comes back from the neighbors yard with a big new load of fleas you know you have to keep him away form the neighbors dog. having some counts would tell you which flea medications were effective and which were not. Seasonal variation in the numbers might reveal a lot about the life cycle of fleas and remove the need to dose your dog with flea-killing potions or keeping him inside in the dormant season. Even absence of evidence is probative. If you find no fleas on your dog but he still still scratches it's a good indication that some other potentially serious skin problem is at hand.

Robert Byers said: Yes measuring or counting is the essence of math and so can be applied to everything.

Measuring is pretty much the basis of all knowledge Byers, not just math. The fact that your side won't actually do any measuring has nothing to do with it's "contributions", and pretty much everything to do with the fact that you don't like where the measurements lead.

Robert Byers said: Measuring isn't the basis of most knowledge. Its a very minor thing and very unrelated to most of biology.

Henry J said: Lots of hypotheses in science make predictions about the frequency of something, or the percentage of some component of something else. Confirming or dis-confirming such predictions is then essential to that science, and requires measuring (or at least counting) the relevant quantities. This includes biology. Yeah, I know that stuff in biology is often much more contingent on environment than is stuff in chemistry or physics, and experiments in chemistry and physics can often be simplified so as to depend on only one or a few variables, and that's hard to do in biology. (Chemistry is of course a somewhat more elementary subject than is biology.) Henry

Robert Byers said: Predictions or not measuring/counting is very unrelated to hypothesis and rarely relevant to testing hypothesis. The glory of advanced math I see as unrelated to scientific discovery/invention. Just as math is unrelated to shooting a shower of arrows at Crecy. Even if basic math was needed to collect and nurse the amount of arrows. My point is that subjects are self contained in their nature as to describing and discovery in them. One can of done most great advances in science without any knowledge or need of math. No not making bridges but figuring out how to shift weight on bridges even needed no math insight.

phhht said:

The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. -- John von Neumann

phhht said: You don't know any math, do you.

Robert Byers said: Predictions or not measuring/counting is very unrelated to hypothesis and rarely relevant to testing hypothesis. The glory of advanced math I see as unrelated to scientific discovery/invention. Just as math is unrelated to shooting a shower of arrows at Crecy. Even if basic math was needed to collect and nurse the amount of arrows. My point is that subjects are self contained in their nature as to describing and discovery in them. One can of done most great advances in science without any knowledge or need of math. No not making bridges but figuring out how to shift weight on bridges even needed no math insight.

Robert Byers said:

Henry J said: Lots of hypotheses in science make predictions about the frequency of something, or the percentage of some component of something else. Confirming or dis-confirming such predictions is then essential to that science, and requires measuring (or at least counting) the relevant quantities. This includes biology. Yeah, I know that stuff in biology is often much more contingent on environment than is stuff in chemistry or physics, and experiments in chemistry and physics can often be simplified so as to depend on only one or a few variables, and that's hard to do in biology. (Chemistry is of course a somewhat more elementary subject than is biology.) Henry

Predictions or not measuring/counting is very unrelated to hypothesis and rarely relevant to testing hypothesis. The glory of advanced math I see as unrelated to scientific discovery/invention. Just as math is unrelated to shooting a shower of arrows at Crecy. Even if basic math was needed to collect and nurse the amount of arrows. My point is that subjects are self contained in their nature as to describing and discovery in them. One can of done most great advances in science without any knowledge or need of math. No not making bridges but figuring out how to shift weight on bridges even needed no math insight.

Robert Byers said:

phhht said:

The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. -- John von Neumann

I understand this was a math guy and he would say that. he's wrong. he's not understanding non math advances. Science is just another word for figuring out things and figuring out how to manipulate things to make other things. ideas or hypothesis is the origin of this advancement and no math models are relevant. Math in the context of science is more then calculating how many people would sink the rowboat. What did VON even contribute to science other then something related to math? What's his patents? to be successful in scientific achievement one should avoid any dealings with math beyond high school. Teaching science interested kids about math is like teaching middle ages kids latin. Just a interference with sharp thinking.

Robert Byers said: I understand this was a math guy and he would say that. he's wrong. he's not understanding non math advances. Science is just another word for figuring out things and figuring out how to manipulate things to make other things. ideas or hypothesis is the origin of this advancement and no math models are relevant. Math in the context of science is more then calculating how many people would sink the rowboat. What did VON even contribute to science other then something related to math? What's his patents? to be successful in scientific achievement one should avoid any dealings with math beyond high school. Teaching science interested kids about math is like teaching middle ages kids latin. Just a interference with sharp thinking.

phhht said: What a laughable ignoramus you are, Robert Byers. You don't even know who John von Neumann was.

apokryltaros said:

phhht said: What a laughable ignoramus you are, Robert Byers. You don't even know who John von Neumann was.

Please remember that you are talking at an Idiot For Jesus who, as an alleged Canadian, thinks that the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution forbids the teaching of evolution in science class, but permits the teaching of Young Earth Creationism in science classes due to nonsense about "origins," and who thinks that it should be a crime against humanity to use C.E. and B.C.E. instead of A.D. and B.C.

Newton and gravity? Please describe how gravity affects an object without using any math.

Math provides a way of describing relationships among objects and sets of objects, that can't be done without it.

Not that this needs to be said to anybody with sense, but different subjects are not "self contained" when they are describing various aspects of the same universe, or same world if the subjects in question are localized to this planet. Chemistry uses physics. Biology uses both of these. Geology uses all of those. Astronomy uses physics and chemistry. Cosmology uses those three. Ecology uses nearly all of them (possible exception of cosmology). All of them use math.

Certainly each of them has details that the others don't concern themselves with. Quantum physics can usually be ignored when studying things at larger scales, but the basic principles are still there. Relativity can usually be ignore when studying things at small scales, but here too the basic principles are still there. Biology can be usually be ignored when studying astronomy, but might have to be considered when looking at spectra from other planets.

On the other hand, science deniers use cosmetology, which is the art of making stuff up.

Henry

Robert Byers said: What's his patents?

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: What's his patents?

von Neumann patents: 1946 with Klaus Fuchs, ""Improvement in Methods and Means for Utilizing Nuclear Energy" 1954 "Non-Linear Capacitance or Inductance Switching, Amplifying, and Memory Organs"

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: What's his patents?

von Neumann patents: 1946 with Klaus Fuchs, ""Improvement in Methods and Means for Utilizing Nuclear Energy" 1954 "Non-Linear Capacitance or Inductance Switching, Amplifying, and Memory Organs"

Robert Byers said:

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: What's his patents?

von Neumann patents: 1946 with Klaus Fuchs, ""Improvement in Methods and Means for Utilizing Nuclear Energy" 1954 "Non-Linear Capacitance or Inductance Switching, Amplifying, and Memory Organs"

Fine. I suspect his contribution was just math stuff. However if he did other things then that would be considered part of whats called discovery and invention. Still any idea of his that math is important ro discovery or invention is just plain misunderstanding things and I suspect just an attempt to make his study essential to science. Largely math is as relevant as pencils. Needed but not the stuff of achievement and advancement. Darwin was wrong about his ideas but math was irrelevant or almost to his ideas. Math as a human idea for description of things I mean.

DS said:

Robert Byers said:

Henry J said: Lots of hypotheses in science make predictions about the frequency of something, or the percentage of some component of something else. Confirming or dis-confirming such predictions is then essential to that science, and requires measuring (or at least counting) the relevant quantities. This includes biology. Yeah, I know that stuff in biology is often much more contingent on environment than is stuff in chemistry or physics, and experiments in chemistry and physics can often be simplified so as to depend on only one or a few variables, and that's hard to do in biology. (Chemistry is of course a somewhat more elementary subject than is biology.) Henry

Predictions or not measuring/counting is very unrelated to hypothesis and rarely relevant to testing hypothesis. The glory of advanced math I see as unrelated to scientific discovery/invention. Just as math is unrelated to shooting a shower of arrows at Crecy. Even if basic math was needed to collect and nurse the amount of arrows. My point is that subjects are self contained in their nature as to describing and discovery in them. One can of done most great advances in science without any knowledge or need of math. No not making bridges but figuring out how to shift weight on bridges even needed no math insight.

Here is a question for you Robert. How did Mendel discover the basic principles of inheritance? Did he use any math? How did Morgan verify and extend the principles that Mendel discovered? Did he use any math? How is modern genetic counseling done? Do they use any math? How about Einstein? DId he use any mathematical formulas? Were his ideas tested? Was any math used to test them? What about Hardy Weinberg? Do you even know who they were? Did they use any math? What about Watson and Crick? How about proving the earth is round? Any math involved in that one? Newton and gravity? Please describe how gravity affects an object without using any math. How about this, how about if you just explain one real scientific theory in your own words? Can you do that? Cause if you can't, then any claims you make about any scientific theories are just so much bullshit. BUt then, we already know that don't we Robert.

DS said: If there is any justice at all in this world you will have to pay for your ignorance and arrogance in a thousand different ways, most of which you won't even recognize.

Life's hard. But it's a lot harder if you're stupid. -- The Friends of Eddie Coyle

What about Hardy Weinberg?

phhht said: Von Neumann arguably could have patented his invention of digital computer architecture, but I guess not his work on the hydrogen bomb or quantum mechanics. He also devised the first self-replicating automaton and about a million other works of genius.

TomS said:

Robert Byers said: What's his patents?

von Neumann patents: 1946 with Klaus Fuchs, ""Improvement in Methods and Means for Utilizing Nuclear Energy" 1954 "Non-Linear Capacitance or Inductance Switching, Amplifying, and Memory Organs"

Karen S. said:

What about Hardy Weinberg?

Poor G. H. Hardy. After we learned about Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium in Coursera's Intro to Genetics and Evolution, the prof pointed out that Hardy lamented that he had never produced anything useful!

Does Current Biology have the Misfortune of Owning an Unreliable Clock? http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin/2013/04/20/does-current-biology-have-the-misfortune-of-owning-an-unreliable-clock