Natural evolution is about replication and propagation of genes. Genes
live on chromosomes, chromosomes live in cells. In most cells, chromosomes
live in pairs. In the sex cells, the sperms and eggs, chromosomes come in
singles. When two sex cells fuse into one, the newly formed cell receives
one chromosome from each of the parent cells. From then on, it multiplies by
dividing, all the while passing on exact copies of its own chromosomes
- in pairs, of course (but not necessarily creating exact copies of
itself.) Not unexpectedly, most of the fun occurs in production of sex
cells each of which carries single chromosomes. Where do these come
from?
The paired chromosomes that live in most cells are not identical: one
chromosome is of the maternal and the other of the paternal lineage. The
genes on the two chromosomes are also paired, genes in a pair being
potentially responsible for one or more features of the future organism
(the phenotype.) The paired genes are known as alleles
of each other. Alleles may have different effects on the phenotype, but
only one allele of the two is given an opportunity to make its contribution
to the offspring's genetic makeup. The lucky alleles that are selected by
chance compose the single chromosomes carried by the sex cells. The process
of composition is known as the crossover. Mistakes made by nature
and chance during the crossover are called mutations. Mistakes
happen.
Mutations aside, the evolutionary process of gene propagation is best
visualized on a genealogy tree. The degree of relatedness between
the nodes on a tree has been used to explain emergence of altruism as a
result of natural selection. The degree of relatedness is a direct
application of simple mathematics in biology. Powerful as this concept is,
it was neglected by ethologists for a long time. In a commentary to the
second edition of the book, Dawkins employs other mathematical tools
(graphing, exponential growth, logarithmic scale) to investigate the
spread of the relatedness meme in the scientific community.
A gene A in a cell comes either from a paternal or maternal
chromosome. As a matter of fact, human beings and apes share more than 90%
of their genes. As the history and the every day life teaches us, commonly
shared genes can't be used to explain any noticeable degree of
altruism. The simplified account of relatedness, thus, takes into account
only genes that are rare in the population. (The full theory and
therefore its conclusions do not depend on this simplification.) On
average, gene A is shared by either of the cell's ancestors with
probability 1/2. In a parent, a gene B has a 50% chance to be picked
by the crossover to carry on its eternal function. Either way one looks,
the relatedness between parents and the offspring is given by 1/2. Down the
tree, the relatedness is decreasing: between grandparents and grandchildren
it's only 1/4, between great grandparents and great grandchildren it's only
1/8, and so on.
In general, given any two nodes on a tree, one can find their nearest
ancestor or ancestors. (Existence of the nearest ancestors is a piece of
mathematics that Dawkins takes for granted.) For each such nearest
ancestor, count and add up the number of generations towards each of the
nodes. For siblings, the number is 2: one step up, another down. For uncles
and nieces, the number is 3 ( = 1 + 2); for cousins,
it's 4 ( = 2 + 2), and so on. Raise 1/2 to this
power. The result is a partial degree of relatedness between the two
nodes. But some nodes (e.g., siblings) share more than one nearest
ancestor. The (total) degree of relatedness is the sum of partial degrees
over all available nearest ancestors. Siblings, having two common
ancestors, are related with the degree of
1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2, exactly like parents and children!
First cousins are related with the degree of 1/8
(= 1/16 + 1/16), but, in some cases, may be closer. Incest
is not only immoral and unhealthy, it also screws up the neat scientific
picture drawn so far.
The symmetry of the relatedness breaks down for ants and other
Hymenoptera. A hymenopteran nest typically has only one mature queen - a
female responsible for all the ongoing reproduction in the nest. In her
youth she was once fortunate to find a mate. From this one encounter, she
stored up the sperm to be used for the rest of her life. She rations the
sperm to her eggs while they pass through her tubes. Some eggs receive the
sperm, some do not. The latter (which grow into males) have no father and
carry only single chromosomes. Therefore a gene in a male comes from his
mother with the probability 1. On the other hand, the mother, which has two
sets of chromosomes, apportions, through the crossover as usual, only half
her genes to the offspring.
The story differs, of course, for the fertilized eggs, but it never
becomes boring. Fertilized eggs develop into females that not only share a
father, but they de facto were conceived from identical sperm cells. A
little counting reveals that the relatedness between two sisters is 3/4,
more than between parents and the offspring. It then looks reasonable that
a female hymenoptera should devote itself to caring more for her mother
(who keeps producing her dear siblings), rather than aspire to get
offspring of her own.
Evolution proceeds entirely without design, by mere chance. This is to
say that there exists a comprehensive and consistent explanation for every
known facet of evolution based on the theory of probability and natural
selection. Nonetheless, it is sometimes convenient to describe a phenomenon
as if genes had a purpose and were developing survival strategies. Thus the
language of game theory found its way into evolutionary biology. Besides
altruistic attitude, evolution may lead to development of co-operation
between different species or even individual genes. Dawkins devotes a whole
chapter, The nice guys finish first, to the favorite puzzle [Costi] of game theory - the Prisoner's Dilemma. As
described in Pinker,
|
Partners in crime are held in separate cells, and the prosecutor offers
each one a deal. If you rat on your partner and he stays mum, you go free
and he gets ten years. If you both stay mum, you both get six months. If
you both rat, you both get five years. The partners cannot communicate, and
neither knows what the other will do. Each one thinks: If my partner rats
and I stay mum, I'll do ten years; if he rats and I rat, too, I'll do five
years. If he stays mum and I stay mum, I'll do six months; if he stays mum
and I rat, I'll go free. Regardless of what he does, then, I'm better off
betraying him. Each is compelled to turn in his partner, and they both
serve five years-far worse than if each had trusted the other. But neither
could take the chance because of the punishment he would incur if the other
didn't. Social psychologists, mathematicians, economists, moral
philosophers, and nuclear strategists have fretted over the paradox for
decades. There is no solution.
|
There is no solution for a single trial. But, repeated trials allow
players - partners in crime - to observe and study each other's behavior
and develop a better paying strategy. Dawkins describes two competitions
organized by Robert Axelrod that showed superiority of a
simple strategy Tit for Tat: start mum, then do what your opponent
did on the previous trial. In general, strategies were divided into two
classes: nice and nasty. An adherent of a nice strategy
never rats first, a nasty fellow does. It turns out that, on the whole,
nice strategies outperformed the nasty ones.
Other chapters in Dawkins' book may be easily related to different
branches of mathematics. There is no room to even touch on all the
possibilities. Nowadays, ideas that are clearly mathematical play an
important and vibrant role in biology. Interestingly, the opposite is also
true. Biological insights led to the development of the theories of neural
networks and genetic algorithms [Goldberg, Holland, Mitchell]. The latter is
especially relevant to the theory of evolution.
The applet below applies a genetic algorithm to solving the Toads
and Frogs puzzle. (The puzzle, due to its name, might have served
as an edifying activity during the recent MAM.) You may want to first solve
the puzzle by conventional means, but here is how the algorithm works.
Possible solutions are represented by a sequence of moves - chromosomes -
with every move thought of as a gene. The puzzle squares are numbered left
to right starting with 0. Moves are designated by the number of the square
from which the move is made. At any particular stage of the puzzle, only
two moves are possible.
All chromosomes have the same length which I chose to be 5 genes longer
than necessary. Crossover is an operator that for a pair of chromosomes
produces two other chromosomes. First it cuts the given chromosomes into
two by selecting a "crossover point", which is the same for both
chromosomes. Next the chromosomes are sliced together but only after
swapping the right (or left) pieces. With a certain probability (I took it
to be 1/2, although usually that probability is much smaller) the new
chromosomes are subject to a random mutation. In addition to a simple gene
replacement, I also built in a mutation specifically reflecting the
structure of the (puzzle) chromosomes: pick a random sub-chromosome, a
contiguous subsequence of genes, and perform a cyclic rotation of genes in
that sub-chromosome.
Each chromosome is evaluated by a fitness function to determine its
"evolutionary viability". Starting on the left I just count the number of
moves that can be performed skipping the "ballast" ones (these are removed
when a solution is found). The population of ten chromosomes is sorted
according to their fitness. On a single evolutionary step either I replace
all but the fittest chromosome or I replace only the two worst
performers. The mating chromosomes are selected randomly with probabilities
proportional to their fitness. That's all.
The search space for a 3 + 3 puzzle has a formidable number of
elements: 720. The algorithm usually finds one of the two
solutions in less than 1000 iterations. The algorithm takes about 20-30
steps to solve the 2 + 2 puzzle. It requires only little
ingenuity to carry out the algorithm for a small puzzle manually.
This must be said, then: the puzzle may be simple, but searching for a
solution in the space just described is not. Apart from the sheer size of
the search space, every wrong move leads to a "false", local maximum of the
fitness function. Watching the algorithm work, one can easily gain
appreciation of the difficulty involved in solving a problem like this.
Genetic algorithms try to mimic natural evolution, but their
justification rests on a mathematically sound theory developed by John
Holland in the mid 1970s in his book Adaptation in Natural and
Artificial Systems (1975). As the title applies, the same mathematical
foundation underlies both natural and artificial systems. So it does not
matter much whether adaptation of sequences of moves in the Toads and Frogs
puzzle is judged artificial or not. It is natural, though, in at least one
respect: it takes place in an environment that is absolutely natural for
the bits and bytes that those chromosomes so naturally are.
References
- R.Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, 1984
- J.L.Costi, Paradigms Lost, William Morrow And Company, 1989
- J.L.Costi, Five Golden Rules, John Wiley & Sons, 1996
- R.Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, new edition, 1989
- D.E.Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, 1989
- J.H.Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, MIT, 1992
- M.Mitchell, An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, MIT, 1998
- S.Pinker, How the Mind Works, W.W.Norton & Company, 1997
Alex Bogomolny has started and still maintains a popular Web site Interactive Mathematics Miscellany and Puzzles
to which he brought more than 10 years of college instruction and, at least as much, programming experience. He holds M.S. degree in Mathematics from the Moscow State University and Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He can be reached at alexb@cut-the-knot.com
Copyright © 1997-1999 Alexander Bogomolny