Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress

[T'ai Chi]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80664


He talks at length about ID supporters' use of the term "by chance", and criticizes them for it, insisting that "chance" is not the way life came about.
...
We would have been offended if someone insisted that we were assembling pattern recognizers in a manner similar to a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747, but we didn't shrink from the term "chance" just because some people might misunderstand it.
...

It just seems to me that saying evolution occurs by chance is a reasonably accurate description, and saying that evolution is a random process is absolutely 100% accurate. I took whole classes on random processes, and evolution is one of them.


Meadmaker, I agree (http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm), and many others do too. If evolution involves random stuff, which is generally accepted by all, then how can the whole thing not accurately be described as random? It is irrelevant if the term random is confused by the general public.

I read Dawkins tract, and the only thing that springs to my mind when I read such stuff is Newton, to name one of many religious people, and all the good and intelligent stuff he did, and then compare that to what Dawkins has done (Memes? Evolution awareness?) and his potential work. I don't think he can even hold a struck match, let alone a candle, to Newton.

[Civilized Worm]

What on earth does that prove? Einstein was an atheist and he achieved far more than Russell Stannard, therefore atheism wins!

As for evolution being random, yes the mutations are random but the process by which their success is determined (natural selection) is anything but.

As the man himself put it:

Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.

[ImaginalDisc]

Meadmaker, I agree (http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm), and many others do too. If evolution involves random stuff, which is generally accepted by all, then how can the whole thing not accurately be described as random? It is irrelevant if the term random is confused by the general public.

You're not reading. Mutations are random, in regards to whether they are neutral, adverse, or useful. However, natural and sexual selection act on the organism with these mutations, and so evolution cannot, in any sense of the word, be called "random."

[Freddy]

Chance plays a crucial role in natural selection, but the traits selected for are not random. Evolution is the interplay of chance and necessity.

[ZouPrime]

The only reason why Dawkins spent time like that to talk about the "randomness" of evolution is because he knows how quickly the creationists jump on words like this, without trying to understand what is actually meant by "random". It's easier to simply remove the reference and directly explain that the result of natural selection isn't random (which is true) instead of trying to explain the subtilities (random mutations yes, but non-random selection, resulting in a non-random process) which are going to get quote-mined by creationists anyway.

[Freddy]

The only reason why Dawkins spent time like that to talk about the "randomness" of evolution is because he knows how quickly the creationists jump on words like this, without trying to understand what is actually meant by "random". It's easier to simply remove the reference and directly explain that the result of natural selection isn't random (which is true) instead of trying to explain the subtilities (random mutations yes, but non-random selection, resulting in a non-random process) which are going to get quote-mined by creationists anyway.

True, but better to clarify what the word actually means in science than to abandon a word that is perfectly appropriate. The hard core creationists aren't going to change their minds anyway, and the average reader would be better served and better able to see how the creationists misunderstand and misrepresent the scientific findings.

[T'ai Chi]

You're not reading. Mutations are random, in regards to whether they are neutral, adverse, or useful. However, natural and sexual selection act on the organism with these mutations, and so evolution cannot, in any sense of the word, be called "random."

Going by the actual definition of random, yes, it can.

Unless you disagree with both

1) evolution can be modelled mathematically

2) f(random, nonrandom), for a non-trivial function f, is random

that is.

[T'ai Chi]

What on earth does that prove? Einstein was an atheist and he achieved far more than Russell Stannard, therefore atheism wins!


It shows that accusations of brain rot, abuse, or whatever, are wishful thinkings, at least going by some of the productions from the greatest religious minds ever.


As for evolution being random, yes the mutations are random but the process by which their success is determined (natural selection) is anything but.


If a component is random, it is accurate to call the entire thing random. Again, peoples' confusions with the word 'random' is irrelevant here.

[ZouPrime]

2) f(random, nonrandom), for a non-trivial function f, is random

This is false. Plenty of f(random, nonrandom) produce non-random results (such as natural selection, for example).

If a component is random, it is accurate to call the entire thing random.

No it's not. People are generally more interested by the result of a process than the inputs of the process itself. If the result is non-random, then calling the process "random" is confusing.

[Foster Zygote]

If a component is random, it is accurate to call the entire thing random. Again, peoples' confusions with the word 'random' is irrelevant here.

I don't know if you genuinely cannot grasp the concept or if you are being willfully ignorant.

If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.

Random mutations create the variety of genes available for natural selection to act on, but non-random selection determines which genes will reproduce in each successive generation.

Oh, I almost forgot. You are ignoring me, not for any ad hominem insult,, but because I, like many others you ignore, have pointed out errors in your claims. Apparently you cannot tolerate criticism of your claims.

[Foster Zygote]

This is false. Plenty of f(random, nonrandom) produce non-random results (such as natural selection, for example).

No it's not. People are generally more interested by the result of a process than the inputs of the process itself. If the result is non-random, then calling the process "random" is confusing.

This is all part of T'ai Chi's argument that evolution is entirely random and that this somehow makes it far to improbable to work without a teleological motivator. If you persist in pointing out errors in his reasoning/argument he'll likely put you on 'ignore'. Unless you become a moderator.:rolleyes:

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't know if you genuinely cannot grasp the concept or if you are being willfully ignorant.

If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.

Random mutations create the variety of genes available for natural selection to act on, but non-random selection determines which genes will reproduce in each successive generation.

Oh, I almost forgot. You are ignoring me, not for any ad hominem insult,, but because I, like many others you ignore, have pointed out errors in your claims. Apparently you cannot tolerate criticism of your claims.

Quoted for Tai'Chi to read and fear.

[T'ai Chi]

This is false. Plenty of f(random, nonrandom) produce non-random results (such as natural selection, for example).


Can you produce any non-trivial f such that f(random, nonrandom) is not random?


If the result is non-random, then calling the process "random" is confusing.

But you're bending to those who want to use a layman's definition of random. Such use of the term is irrelevant to me.

[JC Fla]

I know I am just jumping in here, and may not be up to speed on this high brow stuff, but are you T'ai Chi, calling natural selection trivial? Quite a statement if that is what you are saying. i am sure you can back that up with rational discussion.

Do you often create your own relevance of terms? If so, perhaps you would bring yourself down to the "layman" among we mere mortals and give us your personal definition.

If you already have, I will try and catch up.

[T'ai Chi]

If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.


We're talking about evolution. You're just talking about natural selection. Most people are aware that evolution involves more than just natural selection.

Actually, the number of coins that came up heads is a random variable. The amount in the piggybank is a random variable. The selection process is not random, as has been said many times, that is, NS, natural selection, is not random. Evolution, however, is more than natural selection, and therefore it is accurately described as random, where random is not being defined by layman's use of the word random.

You've apparently then just agreed that f(random, nonrandom) (ie. selection of random and nonrandom stuff) is still a random variable, going by your own example.

[T'ai Chi]

I know I am just jumping in here, and may not be up to speed on this high brow stuff, but are you T'ai Chi, calling natural selection trivial?


JC, I'm asking him to actually type out any function, a non-trivial one (that is, one that is capable of producing varying outputs, the changes that we see via evolution, ie. not just something trivial like f(random number) = 1+random number^0).

[joobz]

Can you produce any non-trivial f such that f(random, nonrandom) is not random?



But you're bending to those who want to use a layman's definition of random. Such use of the term is irrelevant to me.
dC/dt=D*del^2(C) (****'s second law)

it is the summation of the random walk of molecules, yet fully explains the behavior of concentration changes with respect to time and position. Random input, nonrandom output

[T'ai Chi]

This is all part of T'ai Chi's argument that evolution is entirely random


It is technically a stochastic process and many should know better for saying it isn't stochastic. (and a synonym for stochastic is random)

[JC Fla]

dC/dt=D*del^2(C) (****'s second law)

it is the summation of the random walk of molecules, yet fully explains the behavior of concentration changes with respect to time and position. Random input, nonrandom output

Well, i am just a soap salesman, but this seems to answer your request...any comment?

Joobz, just in case you were on ignore, i would hate for this to be missed.

[T'ai Chi]

dC/dt=D*del^2(C) (****'s second law)

it is the summation of the random walk of molecules, yet fully explains the behavior of concentration changes with respect to time and position. Random input, nonrandom output

It is known that you can rewrite ****'s Second Law using probability densitites.

[Vorticity]

This question has been discussed before. See, for example, this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50550

The bottom line is that yes, evolution is indeed random, in the technical sense of the word. In other words, it is a nontrivial stochastic process.

Just because one part of the process (natural selection) is non-random*, does not make the entire process non-random, if other random components (e.g. mutation) are present.

*Although it seems highly unlikely to me that natural selection is perfectly deterministic.

[Vorticity]

If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.
The results of the selection process are non-random in the following sense: Given that a coin has come up heads (tails), we know unambiguously that it is going into the piggy bank (river).

However, this does not make the overall process non-random.

If you think it does, perhaps you can tell me ahead of time the value of the variable N which represents the number of coins that will go in to the piggy bank out of 100 flips.

Or is that a random variable?

[joobz]

It is known that you can rewrite ****'s Second Law using probability densitites.
very true. But if you can describe the behavior without a random term, then it isn't a random process on that.

You are correct to harp on the stochastic process not being point for point deterministic. but it is disingenious to pretend this means that the overall effect isn't predictable, reproducible and determinable (if that last one's a word:o ).

we can discuss changes in diffusion with selective membranes, pressure gradients, chemical reactions (features used in industry to obtain highly reproducible outcomes generating high profits). all of which work to change the outcome in observable and predictable ways, even if the underling components are stochastic. No one would claim that any of these effects are "random" in the way you wish to imply it.

[Foster Zygote]

We're talking about evolution. You're just talking about natural selection. Most people are aware that evolution involves more than just natural selection.
Wow! Are you really going to start addressing points made concerning your arguments?

Actually, the number of coins that came up heads is a random variable. The amount in the piggybank is a random variable.
So after 10 million coin tosses we cannot expect very nearly 5 million heads and 5 million tails? At any rate, the number of results for each outcome is irrelevant to this model. The composition of the coins placed in the piggy bank is what matters. Probability produces a random assortment of results for the coin tosses. Selection eliminates all those tossed coins that come up tails. The results are that the selected individual outcomes do not reflect random chance.

The selection process is not random, as has been said many times, that is, NS, natural selection, is not random. Evolution, however, is more than natural selection, and therefore it is accurately described as random, where random is not being defined by layman's use of the word random.
What does our inability to exactly model the nature of future mutations have to do with the viability of evolutionary theory?

You've apparently then just agreed that f(random, nonrandom) (ie. selection of random and nonrandom stuff) is still a random variable, going by your own example.
Joobz has provided an example. I'll let you answer him.

Honestly, do you really think that if you were genuinely on to something here that would invalidate the theory of evolution be natural selection that you would be the first person among many, many, thousands of scientists and mathematicians to notice it? Far smarter people than you or I see no problem.

[Vorticity]

It is known that you can rewrite ****'s Second Law using probability densitites.
But this response doesn't cut to the crux of the matter:

While a single process may be stochastic, the evolution of the mean of an ensemble of such processes is necessarily deterministic by definition (although perhaps not Markov). Ficks law is fundamentally a relation describing the mean evolution of the concentration field of some material, and as such must be deterministic.

Any given real-world instance of a system nominally governed by ****'s law will display deviations from it, to a degree that depends on the size of the system, the temperature, and other factors. However, an ensemble average of many such instances will indeed obey ****'s law.

[Vorticity]

What does our inability to exactly model the nature of future mutations have to do with the viability of evolutionary theory?
Who said anything about the viability of evolutionary theory?

I think you're falling for the IDer fallacy regarding the meaning of the word "random". "Random" doesn't mean "completely unpredictable".

Suppose I'm going to roll a die. Lets call the number that comes up X. It'll be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Then, let's define another number Y = X + 997. We know ahead of time that Y will be around 1000.

And yet, it is indisputably a random variable.

[Vorticity]

very true. But if you can describe the behavior without a random term, then it isn't a random process on that.
But you're not describing the process. You're describing the ensemble mean of many such processes.

[T'ai Chi]

The bottom line is that yes, evolution is indeed random, in the technical sense of the word. In other words, it is a nontrivial stochastic process.


Thank you.

Yet Dawkisn and others go out of their way to say it is non-random. I can only imagine that they do it because they want to avoid arguments from creationists who misunderstand the word random, or because some evolutionists over-emphasize the impact of selection on evolution.

[T'ai Chi]

but it is disingenious to pretend this means that the overall effect isn't predictable, reproducible and determinable (if that last one's a word:o ).


Stochastic is stochastic. If you can predict something to within .00001, but you can't predict it for certainty, it is stochastic.


No one would claim that any of these effects are "random" in the way you wish to imply it.

I'm stating it in the technical definiton of random, ie a variable has a probability distribution, not any layman's term of random that you'd like to impute to me.

[T'ai Chi]

So after 10 million coin tosses we cannot expect very nearly 5 million heads and 5 million tails?


Yes, you can expect that, sure given a fair coin, but the actual number is a random variable.


Honestly, do you really think that if you were genuinely on to something here that would invalidate the theory of evolution be natural selection that you would be the first person among many, many, thousands of scientists and mathematicians to notice it? Far smarter people than you or I see no problem.

Huh? I see nothing in what I wrote that shows I am trying to invalidate the theory of evolution. Quit being so dramatic. What I did write shows that pleas by Dawkins and Miller that 'calling evolution random is false' is itself false.

[joobz]

I'm stating it in the technical definiton of random, ie a variable has a probability distribution, not any layman's term of random that you'd like to impute to me.
Fair enough. I retract my statements I have made on your intentions. I apologize for making such assumptions.

Yet the simple fact that you can describe a process without need of probability terms highlights the deterministic nature of that process. I do not see the advantage defining it as anything other than that.

[Civilized Worm]

What part of "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators" didn't you get? Was it the part about how the replicators vary randomly?


It shows that accusations of brain rot, abuse, or whatever, are wishful thinkings, at least going by some of the productions from the greatest religious minds ever.


When has Dawkins ever accused all religious people of being idiots? Anyway Newton was also big on alchemy so although brilliant he was hardly a paragon of rationality, at least not by today's standards.

[T'ai Chi]

When has Dawkins ever accused all religious people of being idiots?


Never suggested he did.


Anyway Newton was also big on alchemy so although brilliant he was hardly a paragon of rationality, at least not by today's standards.

Then I suggest that the New Rationality fails miserably because we apparently have not had someone with the impact Newton had.

[Jekyll]

Honestly, do you really think that if you were genuinely on to something here that would invalidate the theory of evolution be natural selection that you would be the first person among many, many, thousands of scientists and mathematicians to notice it? Far smarter people than you or I see no problem.

Tai chi doesn't actually disbelieve the theory of evolution, he just wants to be able to say that Dawkins was wrong about something, anything at all in fact.

Even if wrong just means 'using the layman's definition of the word random'.

[Foster Zygote]

Tai chi doesn't actually disbelieve the theory of evolution, he just wants to be able to say that Dawkins was wrong about something, anything at all in fact.

Even if wrong just means 'using the layman's definition of the word random'.

I could swear that some months ago I posted a quote by Dawkins from The Blind Watchmaker in which he addresses the issue. It made it clear that Dawkins had no intention of denying that there is a random element involved in evolution. What he did want to address was the creationist claim that evolution is entirely random, the "tornado assembling a working 747" argument. Of course, T'ai probably didn't read it if he had me on ignore.

[darnell11]

[quote=Civilized Worm;2563370]What on earth does that prove? Einstein was an atheist and he achieved far more than Russell Stannard, therefore atheism wins!

I'm confused, I thought Einstein believed in god, that he was disturbed when he realized the universe behaved in a more random and chaotic ways than people believed (which is agaisnt god's plan or design, or whatever) and that was why he wanted to come up with a theory that explained everything and held everything together in an orderly fashion, because he so believed that god was the creater of the universe. Did I learn wrong? I think he said some sort of quote like, (paraphrase) "God does not play dice." I don't think Einstein was an athiest.:confused:

[Foster Zygote]

I'm confused, I thought Einstein believed in god, that he was disturbed when he realized the universe behaved in a more random and chaotic ways than people believed (which is agaisnt god's plan or design, or whatever) and that was why he wanted to come up with a theory that explained everything and held everything together in an orderly fashion, because he so believed that god was the creater of the universe. Did I learn wrong? I think he said some sort of quote like, (paraphrase) "God does not play dice." I don't think Einstein was an athiest.:confused:

Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God" meaning that he used the word "God" to refer to the physical laws of the universe. He stated that he did not believe in any sort of personal god.

[CFLarsen]

Thank you.

Yet Dawkisn and others go out of their way to say it is non-random. I can only imagine that they do it because they want to avoid arguments from creationists who misunderstand the word random, or because some evolutionists over-emphasize the impact of selection on evolution.

.....why would Dawkins and others go out of their way to avoid arguments from creationists who misunderstand the word random?

[CFLarsen]

If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.

Random mutations create the variety of genes available for natural selection to act on, but non-random selection determines which genes will reproduce in each successive generation.

That was a very accurate account of what evolution is.

I'll steal that. :)

[Civilized Worm]

Then I suggest that the New Rationality fails miserably because we apparently have not had someone with the impact Newton had.


What are you saying? That science needs more alchemists?

[Vorticity]

Even if wrong just means 'using the layman's definition of the word random'.
Hey, what is the layman's definition of the word "random", anyway? I've just realized I have no idea. :confused:

[Walter Wayne]

Hey, what is the layman's definition of the word "random", anyway? I've just realized I have no idea. :confused:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=random

[Civilized Worm]

As in "It was like, so totally random dude!"? I'd like to know that too.

[Walter Wayne]

Evolution is random. Given the general understanding of what random means among the population, it does provide a hurdle to arguing against those who misuse the word, intentionally or otherwise, in debates about origins.

Countering that the creationist has used a false premise, "evolution is random", in his argument would be misleading on our part, intentional or otherwise. The problem becomes how best to explain that randomness doesn't necessarily lead to chaos/disorder.

I've yet to see a 2 minute "intro to randomness" that doesn't involve the standard coin flips, or die rolls. As such, I've yet to come across a really good ,quick and easy to understand counter argument to the standard attack other than to mention that randomness in a process doesn't lead to the qualities they expect and that a full rebuttle would require more than a one liner, a lunch discussion or even a long evening discussion to get across.

Of course, that isn't so much a rebuttle, and will be viewed by some as evasion. But coming up with an honest, accurate and short rebuttle isn't simple given the subject.

Walter

[Jekyll]

I could swear that some months ago I posted a quote by Dawkins from The Blind Watchmaker in which he addresses the issue. It made it clear that Dawkins had no intention of denying that there is a random element involved in evolution. What he did want to address was the creationist claim that evolution is entirely random, the "tornado assembling a working 747" argument. Of course, T'ai probably didn't read it if he had me on ignore.

I don't think T'ai has anyone on ignore. It's just that other people's clear explanations don't help him stir up controversy and get passed over.

[Jekyll]

Hey, what is the layman's definition of the word "random", anyway? I've just realized I have no idea. :confused:

Any of these: http://www.answers.com/random&r=67

Apart from number 2 in the American heritage definitions and the wiki entry.

[Vorticity]

Any of these: http://www.answers.com/random&r=67

Apart from number 2 in the American heritage definitions and the wiki entry.
Yes, I see. From the first bit of that link:

ran·dom (răn'dəm) adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:

at random

1. Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.
Obviously, 2 is (more or less) the technical definition we've been referring to here. The other definitions - especially the 'idiom' version - seem to fit in more with the strawman ID statement about evolution being 'random', e.g. the old candard about a 747 being assembled by a tornado in a junkyard.

Can we all agree now that evolution is indeed random, in the technical sense of the word (i.e. 2 above), though not in the 'layman's sense' (i.e. the other definitions above)?

[Vorticity]

Here's another thing that's been bugging me:
...
If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.
This idea has been stated in several forms in this thread, i.e. that while the mutation process is certainly random, the process of natural selection by which less-well-adapted variants are culled from the population is deterministic.

This seems to me to be a highly dubious claim. I'm having trouble seeing how the natural selection process could be completely deterministic. Certainly, the more-well-adapted variants will have a higher chance of surviving and reproducing. Perhaps siginificantly higher. Likewise, a poorly-adapted variant will have a much higher chance of becoming lunch. But it's not a certitude. These probabilities are not 1 and 0.

To put it another way, suppose we know the set of gene/allele frequencies of a population in a given generation. Even if we suppose that no mutation events will occur between this generation and the next, we cannot in advance specify the precise gene/allele content of the next generation. There is still significant randomness left over. Who will be eaten, who will reproduce, how much will they reproduce, etc. Now of course this is a sort of 'directed randomness', in the sense that the more adapted variants have a much better chance. But this does not suddenly make it nonrandom.

[Walter Wayne]

Can we all agree now that evolution is indeed random, in the technical sense of the word (i.e. 2 above), though not in the 'layman's sense' (i.e. the other definitions above)?
Not I.
ran·dom (răn'dəm) adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:

at random

1. Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.
What is the specific pattern of evolution? What is the purpose? The objective?

What is the governing design? Method? or Purpose?

Given definition 3 I would agree evolution isn't random, but then under that definition the sum of rolling two six-sided dice (2d6 in geek speak) isn't random either. (Aside, the example they give for definition 3 isn't an example of a situation "where all outcomes are equally likely either).

One might argue that the "governing method" of evolution is not replicating some genes in the next generation, but given the non-deterministic nature of that, it is still a weak argument to say evolution isn't random.

Walt

[CFLarsen]

Here's another thing that's been bugging me:

This idea has been stated in several forms in this thread, i.e. that while the mutation process is certainly random, the process of natural selection by which less-well-adapted variants are culled from the population is deterministic.

This seems to me to be a highly dubious claim. I'm having trouble seeing how the natural selection process could be completely deterministic. Certainly, the more-well-adapted variants will have a higher chance of surviving and reproducing. Perhaps siginificantly higher. Likewise, a poorly-adapted variant will have a much higher chance of becoming lunch. But it's not a certitude. These probabilities are not 1 and 0.

To put it another way, suppose we know the set of gene/allele frequencies of a population in a given generation. Even if we suppose that no mutation events will occur between this generation and the next, we cannot in advance specify the precise gene/allele content of the next generation. There is still significant randomness left over. Who will be eaten, who will reproduce, how much will they reproduce, etc. Now of course this is a sort of 'directed randomness', in the sense that the more adapted variants have a much better chance. But this does not suddenly make it nonrandom.

Who said that natural selection is deterministic?

It is "deterministic", as in "whatever works", but there's no higher goal apart from that. A better term could be utilitarian.

[Vorticity]

Who said that natural selection is deterministic?
Well, look at Foster Zygote's metaphor:
If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.
Here the selection process (i.e. "head -> piggy bank, tails -> river") is entirely deterministic. If we know whether it's heads/tails, we know where it's going.

I suspect that a much better analogy for evolution would be something like: "If it comes up heads, it has a %55 chance of going into the piggy bank, but if it comes up tails, it has only a %45 chance."
It is "deterministic", as in "whatever works", but there's no higher goal apart from that. A better term could be utilitarian.
I'm not sure I follow you. In this context, "deterministic" would mean that given a particular specification of the gene/allele frequencies in a population, we can state exactly which individuals will be culled by natural selection, and which will not be. I'm saying this is almost certainly false: The culling has a random component as well.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but we can only do it once, because the species would have evolved into something different. Not a lot of difference, but different nonetheless.

[Jekyll]

Not I.

What is the specific pattern of evolution?

Survival of the fittest?

[ImaginalDisc]

Survival of the fittest?

Argh! Fitness is a measured quality of the number of descendants an organism has. Replacing "fittest" with its definition in "survival of the fittest" results in a tautology.

[Vorticity]

I just wanted to come back to one thing.

Who said that natural selection is deterministic?

Actually, you did:

But the "weeding out" isn't random.

In this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1385903&postcount=105

of this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50550&page=3

[Jekyll]

Argh! Fitness is a measured quality of the number of descendants an organism has. Replacing "fittest" with its definition in "survival of the fittest" results in a tautology.
You forgot to replace the word survival with 'The number of descendants an organism has' :p . Unless you're talking about the survival of genes in which case it isn't a tautology.

[Cuddles]

Argh! Fitness is a measured quality of the number of descendants an organism has. Replacing "fittest" with its definition in "survival of the fittest" results in a tautology.

Tautologies are not always bad. We see the things we see around us today because the ones that didn't produce decendants don't have any decendants for us to see. This is the founding principle behind theories of evolution. It is a tautology, but one that many people either don't see or refuse to believe. Pointing it out is not a debating fallacy, it is simply stating a fundamental truth that is absolutely vital for any understanding of how evolution works.

What is the governing design? Method? or Purpose?

Are you claiming that natural selection is not the governing method of evolution?

[CFLarsen]

Actually, you did:

I pointed out that "deterministic" isn't (necessarily) the opposite of "random".

You can say it is "deterministic" for each generation. The next generation is not solely dependent on the preceding.

[thaiboxerken]

Meadmaker, I agree (http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm), and many others do too. If evolution involves random stuff, which is generally accepted by all, then how can the whole thing not accurately be described as random?

I guess you've never played card games or dice.

[Vorticity]

I pointed out that "deterministic" isn't (necessarily) the opposite of "random".

In this context, "deterministic" is certainly the opposite of "random".

The relevant definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deterministic are:


deterministic

adjective
an inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

deterministic
1. Describes a system whose time evolution can be predicted exactly.
Contrast probabilistic.

The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2007 Denis Howe


(The other definitions, relating to the philosophical notion of "determinism", are not relevant to the current, largely mathematical, discussion.)

You can say it is "deterministic" for each generation. The next generation is not solely dependent on the preceding.

If, by your second sentence here, you mean that the next generation may depend on a sequence of preceding generations, then you may or may not be correct. The process of evolution would still be random (not deterministic), however. The technical term for this type of stochastic process would be "non-Markovian".

If that isn't what you meant, then your statement is a non-sequitor: The two sentences in the above quote seem to contradict one another.

[CFLarsen]

But evolution cannot be predicted exactly.

[Vorticity]

I guess you've never played card games or dice.
I'm not sure I follow you.

Are you suggesting that these games are not essentially random? Remember, just because a game is random doesn't have to mean that each player has the same probability of winning. Just because skill will confer upon a player a much higher probability of winning doesn't mean that the game is non-random.

In fact, in the games you mention above, knowledge of the various probabilities associated with the inherent randomness of the game is often a large component of what constitues skill.

[thaiboxerken]

Are you suggesting that these games are not essentially random?

Exactly, they utilize randomness but the rules aren't random and how the player bets isn't random, how the winner is determined is also not random.

The games are not random, they only utilize randomness.

[Vorticity]

But evolution cannot be predicted exactly.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Now I'm getting confused. Perhaps we're having some kind of jargon barrier.

Yes, evolution cannot be predicted exactly. That is precisely my point.

If it cannot be predicted exactly given a precise description of the current state and history of the system, then it is random. That's what random is. If it could be so predicted, then it would be deterministic. Deterministic is the opposite of random.

I think you are agreeing with me without knowing it.

[Vorticity]

Exactly, they utilize randomness but the rules aren't random and how the player bets isn't random, how the winner is determined is also not random.

The games are not random, they only utilize randomness.

Yes, but any given instance of the game itself is a random process. How the winner is determined is "not random" in the sense that the rules are very clear on what has to happen for someone to become the winner. But can you say before the game who will win? Definitely not. You can't say that without knowing what cards will be dealt to each player, which is assumed to be random. If the outcome (i.e. who wins) cannot be predicted with certainty ahead of time, then it is a random variable. This is very simple.

Even a very skilled player will lose from time to time, because their skill only confers upon them a greater probability of winning, and not a certitude of winning.

Evolution is random in much the same way. This is not just some technical nitpick. The statement that evolution is random (or stochastic) follows unambiguously from the definition of what it means to be random. To deny that evolution is random is to deny something very central to its nature.

Keep in mind that saying "evolution is random" in no way undermines the validity of the concept of evolution by natural selection. That is a creationist strawman.

[thaiboxerken]

When I drive to work, it's just random chance that I get there because there are plenty of random factors that could stop me from getting to my destination. Is this your position?

[CFLarsen]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Now I'm getting confused. Perhaps we're having some kind of jargon barrier.

Yes, evolution cannot be predicted exactly. That is precisely my point.

If it cannot be predicted exactly given a precise description of the current state and history of the system, then it is random. That's what random is. If it could be so predicted, then it would be deterministic. Deterministic is the opposite of random.

I think you are agreeing with me without knowing it.

Nope. I know I am disagreeing with you. :)

Evolution isn't random, in the sense that there aren't limitations to what the next generation will be like. Two furry polar bears can get a polar bear with slightly longer fur - but two furry polar bears won't get a slug.

Similarly, evolution isn't deterministic, in the sense that you can predict exactly what the offspring will be like. You have all sorts of influences: Environment, mutated genes, you name it.

[Vorticity]

When I drive to work, it's just random chance that I get there because there are plenty of random factors that could stop me from getting to my destination. Is this your position?
Of course, is there any other way of looking at it?

One thing that catches my eye: Your use of the phrase "it's just random chance that I get there" makes it sound like you think that "random" must mean that you have only a 50% chance of getting there, or perhaps that you think it means that you have just as much chance of ending up anywhere as at work.

This is not what "random" necessarily means. If we assume that there are random factors at play that make your probability of getting to work anything less than 1, then whether or not you make it to work is indeed a random event. Even if the probability of you getting to work was 99.999%, it's still random.

This is not just "my position". This is what the word "random" means to anyone who studies it.

[Vorticity]

Evolution isn't random, in the sense that there aren't limitations to what the next generation will be like.
But this isn't what random means. "Random" does not mean "without limits". If that were the case, then a random variable uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 would be "non-random" simply because its range of possible values is limited.

No one uses the word "random" that way.
Similarly, evolution isn't deterministic, in the sense that you can predict exactly what the offspring will be like. You have all sorts of influences: Environment, mutated genes, you name it.
Yes, I agree. And these influences (particularly the mutations) are "random".

Look, this is very simple: Any process that is influenced by random events in such a way that its future state cannot be predicted precisely in advance is random. That is what the word means.

I know that arguments from authority don't count for much around here, but please, please, please take my word on this definition. The study of random processes is what I do for a living. I don't know what else I can say to convince you.

[thaiboxerken]

Essentially, everything is random according to your definition of what "random" is. You've basically made the term "random" meaningless.

[Vorticity]

Essentially, everything is random according to your definition of what "random" is.

In principle, yes.

And by the way, this is not "my" definition. This is the standard definition.

You've basically made the term "random" meaningless.

Not at all. Just because everything is in principle "random" does not in any way mean that the term is without meaning. Many, many processes can be predicted using deterministic models with far, far more accuracy than we can possibly measure. It makes sense in these cases to speak of these processes as "deterministic", since it is beyond our ability to tell otherwise.

So, in practice, there is a kind of subjective "degree of randomness" that a process must have in order for it to be utilitarian to refer to it as "random", even if all processes are random according to the technical definition of the word. In other words, we can make a conceptual distinction between the two concepts which is very useful in practice, in much the same way that we can make a distinction between "circles" and "squares", even though no absolutely perfect circles or squares may exist in real life.

As for your drive to work, I think it does make sense to refer to it as random. Take car accidents, for example. There are good statistics available on the incidence of such accidents per car per trip. We can measure the probabilities involved, and they are not negligibly small. Assuming you have the same probability as anyone else of getting into an accident, then your successful arrival at work is indeed the result of random chance.

I can think of 2 or 3 times in the last year when I started driving to work and for whatever reason ended up not getting there that day. So - if we stipulate that the factors that kept me from getting there are random - then my probability of not getting to work each day is on the order of 1 in 100. To me, this is non-negligible.

And as for evolution, It seems clear to me that it is significantly more random than whether or not you get to work safely. Walter Wayne made a good point in the other thread:

A question for the "non-randomites". Do you think that the rise of humanity was inevitable, given the conditions when life first crawled onto land?

Again, to re-re-re-iterate: Saying that "evolution is random" is in no way a criticism of evolutionary theory.

[CFLarsen]

But this isn't what random means. "Random" does not mean "without limits". If that were the case, then a random variable uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 would be "non-random" simply because its range of possible values is limited.

No one uses the word "random" that way.

That's exactly it: Some people do use the word "random" that way, especially when it comes to evolution.

Namely Creationists.

Capiche? ;)

[Vorticity]

That's exactly it: Some people do use the word "random" that way, especially when it comes to evolution.

Namely Creationists.

Capiche? ;)
Yes, I understand that perfectly, and have from the beginning. When I said "nobody uses the word 'random' that way", I meant nobody uses the word random techinically with that meaning.

So I understand why Dawkins (or whoever) might be tempted to insist that evolution is not random. But I think this is a mistake akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Evolution is certainly random by the technical definition* ,though not by the common definition.

*Which I think of as the 'real' definition, since it's my job.

[thaiboxerken]

In principle, yes.

And by the way, this is not "my" definition. This is the standard definition.

You're using the mathematical/statistical definition, not the layman's definition. When talking to lay people, I tend to use layman's definition.



Not at all. Just because everything is in principle "random" does not in any way mean that the term is without meaning.

In this context, it renders the word to have no value. To say evolution is a random process is equivalent to saying that building a plane is a random process as well because there are always random elements.


Again, to re-re-re-iterate: Saying that "evolution is random" is in no way a criticism of evolutionary theory.

The way you use the term, it might not be. The way T'ai Chi uses it IS definitely a criticism and meant to be a criticism.

[Vorticity]

You're using the mathematical/statistical definition,
Of course. That's what this thread is about.

not the layman's definition. When talking to lay people, I tend to use layman's definition.
The technical definition of 'random' is really the only one that I find coherent. Despite what was posted above, I have only a murky understanding of what is supposed to be meant by the layman's definition of random.

If you were using the layman's definition of 'random', what would the phrase "evolution is random" mean to you?

In this context, it renders the word to have no value.
Oh, I think not. I've explained this above.

It is in the nature of science to be reductionist, and to work with idealized models. One very common idealized model is that of a purely deterministic system. Such systems may not truly exist in reality, but the concept is of immeasurable value in describing an endless array of physical systems. Thus, the term 'deterministic' has value. As a consequence, the term 'random' - as the antithesis of deterministic - also has value.

In practice, one would call random that which is demonstrably and measurably non-deterministic. Naturally, this would depend on context.

To say evolution is a random process is equivalent to saying that building a plane is a random process as well because there are always random elements.

Well, there are degrees.

I think that evolution is much more deserving of the label "random" than the process of building a plane. In building a plane, there is a particular specific form and objective that the process is heading towards. In evolution this is the case only in the sense that populations tend to seek out greater adaptation to their environment. Given a particular starting point, there may be many different paths a population can take to achieve such adaptation. Consider the statement of Walter Wayne that I quoted a few posts up.

The way you use the term, it might not be.

I certainly isn't, otherwise many evolutionary biologists would be guilty of condemning their own field. Note that models of evolution as random processes of various types (e.g. in simulations) are ubiquitous.

The way T'ai Chi uses it IS definitely a criticism and meant to be a criticism.

There seems to be ample circumstancial evidence from around this forum that T'ai Chi is some kind of creationist, or at least that he doesn't accept evolutionary theory. In light of this, his efforts to establish evolution as random may be the precursor to some kind of rhetorical 'gotcha' yet to be revealed.

Nevertheless, in the context of this thread his definition and my definition seems to be one and the same. And according to my definition, it's not a criticism.

[T'ai Chi]

I guess you've never played card games or dice.

Are you saying the outcomes of what cards come up is not random, and the outcomes of die throws are not random?

You must win casino jackpots all the time then...

In fact, what goes on in casinos is perhaps the longest running demonstration of stochastic processes in action... besides evolution that is. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

There seems to be ample circumstancial evidence from around this forum that T'ai Chi is some kind of creationist, or at least that he doesn't accept evolutionary theory. In light of this, his efforts to establish evolution as random may be the precursor to some kind of rhetorical 'gotcha' yet to be revealed.


Since when is it about the person rather than the argument being presented?

I'd like to point out that this 'evidence' is like one, maybe two, people just repeating their biases against me ad nauseum for whooping them in arguments. :)

[thaiboxerken]

Of course. That's what this thread is about.

No, it's not. It's about T'ai Chi's strawman of evolution.


If you were using the layman's definition of 'random', what would the phrase "evolution is random" mean to you?

It would mean that the process is entirely random, that all life and life-forms are due to chance alone.


There seems to be ample circumstancial evidence from around this forum that T'ai Chi is some kind of creationist, or at least that he doesn't accept evolutionary theory. In light of this, his efforts to establish evolution as random may be the precursor to some kind of rhetorical 'gotcha' yet to be revealed.

He is a creationist and often cites Discovery Institute articles to "poke holes" in evolution.


Nevertheless, in the context of this thread his definition and my definition seems to be one and the same. And according to my definition, it's not a criticism.

No, your definition is definitely not the same as his. Tai Chi wants to build a strawman charicature of evolution and then tear it down.

[Civilized Worm]

He's not a creationist, he's "just asking questions". :rolleyes:

[Walter Wayne]

Are you claiming that natural selection is not the governing method of evolution?But there is chance in selection itself. If we determined the winner of a game by roll of a die: on a 5 or 6 I win, on any other result you win. We have a governing process to determining a winner. But would a layman say it wasn't random even if the odds do favour one participant more than the other?

Walt

[articulett]

He's not a creationist, he's "just asking questions". :rolleyes:

Do they ever question their woo with the same curiosity?

[darnell11]

Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God" meaning that he used the word "God" to refer to the physical laws of the universe. He stated that he did not believe in any sort of personal god.

Thanks for correcting me!

[CFLarsen]

Since when is it about the person rather than the argument being presented?

I'd like to point out that this 'evidence' is like one, maybe two, people just repeating their biases against me ad nauseum for whooping them in arguments. :)

Well, put those on ignore, then, and ignore them, instead of talking about how much people want to talk about you.

And then, you can address the arguments being presented.

[Belz...]

I pointed out that "deterministic" isn't (necessarily) the opposite of "random".

It is, unless "random" is used to mean "deterministic process of which we don't have know all the factors."

[Ivor the Engineer]

Even more mind-bending (for me, anyway) is a random variable having a variance of zero. I.e. a constant-random variable.

[Meadmaker]

Hi, folks. Didn't realize the thread had split.

I don't know how to break it to you folks, but the selection process is pretty darned random as well. The whole thing is just filled with randomness.

Can anyone seriously suggest that you know the outcome of evolutionary processes? Was it somehow predetermined that bipedal mammals would become the dominant species on Earth some 600 million years after the Cambrian explosion? I'm thinking that it wouldn't have happened if 65 million years ago someone* hadn't thrown a really big rock at the Gulf of Mexico. Sounds random to me.

What is not random is the assembly of molecules into DNA, or organs into bodies. That happens according to the laws of physics, as expressed in chemistry. That's the analogy made by IDers and creationists that rightfully draws fire. They sometimes talk about those organs or the strings of DNA "randomly" assembling themselves. That's absurd. No one thinks that happens.

However, that isn't what Dawkins is attacking. He is attacking the characterization of evolution as having happened by chance. Sorry, Dick, but it did. The mutations occur randomly, although some things are more likely to mutate than others. The selection occurs randomly, although some selection is more likely than others. The theory of evolution says that life arose and developed by chance. It really does say that, and whether or not the creationists accept that, it really did happen. We are here by chance.

What's the problem?


==========
*figuratively speaking, of course. No one threw the rock. It was just a random event.

[CFLarsen]

The theory of evolution says that life arose and developed by chance. It really does say that.

No. It. Does. Not.

[mijopaalmc]

No. It. Does. Not.

So saith the Lord!!!!! :rolleyes:

[davidsmith73]

Mutations are random, in regards to whether they are neutral, adverse, or useful.

Does anyone know whether this has ever been empirically tested?

[steenkh]

I don't know how to break it to you folks, but the selection process is pretty darned random as well. The whole thing is just filled with randomness.

Can anyone seriously suggest that you know the outcome of evolutionary processes?
If the environment gets colder, you can be pretty sure that the result of the selection process will be a better adjustment to the cold. If a main source of food gets scarce, the selection process will also favour changes that make it possible to use other food source.

The actual method is randomly chosen. In the first case, animals could change their metabolism, or they could gain longer fur; in the second example, a longer reach could offset the dwindling food source, or a change in enzymes could make it possible to digest other kinds of food. But nevertheless, the selection process drives evolution to find answers to specific problems, and that is not random.

[Meadmaker]

If the environment gets colder, .... But nevertheless, the selection process drives evolution to find answers to specific problems, and that is not random.

You're using the language of purpose here. "find"? "answers"? "problems"?

But, leaving aside the use of language and its limitations, and our stong tendency to associate purpose with things, even if they have none, there's still an issue here.

The specific "problems" that must be "solved" are selected randomly. Dinosaurs were very poorly suited to survive asteroid impacts and the associated changes in climate. Bye-bye dinosaurs. If that asteroid hadn't hit, the future course of evolution would have been very different. The fact that the ecological niche previously occupied by dinosaurs was now vacant was a coincidence, a chance occurrence, a random event. Our shrew-like ancestors were not selected by special fitness to have descendants that would dominate the world. Their genes got lucky.

[Belz...]

I don't know how to break it to you folks, but the selection process is pretty darned random as well. The whole thing is just filled with randomness.

To what "randomness" are you refering ? True randomness, or just our inability to define all the factors that come into play for a deterministic event ?

Sounds random to me.

It doesn't to me. That rock was going to hit there, unless you think that quantum fluctuations could have altered its course.

However, that isn't what Dawkins is attacking. He is attacking the characterization of evolution as having happened by chance. Sorry, Dick, but it did. The mutations occur randomly, although some things are more likely to mutate than others. The selection occurs randomly, although some selection is more likely than others. The theory of evolution says that life arose and developed by chance. It really does say that, and whether or not the creationists accept that, it really did happen. We are here by chance.

What's the problem?

We're not here by "chance" in the absolute sense. In terms of predictability, of course, there's no way you could calculate the odds.

[Meadmaker]

We're not here by "chance" in the absolute sense.

Is there any sense in which we are not here by chance?


In terms of predictability, of course, there's no way you could calculate the odds.

The fact that there are "odds", shows that there is chance. We might have developed. We might not have developed. There's no guiding hand to make sure we did develop. It just happened. If climate had been different, different things would have happened. If some predator had mutated to become more efficient, Lucy would have been eaten and not reproduced. If another asteroid had hit, who knows?

What's so scary about saying "chance"?

[tracer]

I'm thinking that it wouldn't have happened if 65 million years ago someone* hadn't thrown a really big rock at the Gulf of Mexico.
The fascinating thing is, He was just trying to pitch us high and inside so that we wouldn't crowd the plate so much. He never intended to give us first base.

[Belz...]

Is there any sense in which we are not here by chance?

Quite. The sense in which "random" just means that you don't know all the factors that come into play, but in which the event itself is completely deterministic and involves no randomness, per se. Of course, once we open that door, every event since the laws of the universe were settled is deterministic and there is no evidence for any randomness aside from quantum fluctuations, themselves not known, yet, to influence the macroscopic.

The fact that there are "odds", shows that there is chance.

Yes, but only in the more restricted meaning of the word. That's why I asked.

We might have developed. We might not have developed. There's no guiding hand to make sure we did develop. It just happened.

It didn't "just" happen. The conditions were right. Luck had nothing to do with it. And I'm not talking about "fate".

What's so scary about saying "chance"?

Nothing's scary about it. It's just inaccurate.

[CFLarsen]

So saith the Lord!!!!! :rolleyes:

No, science.

Good enough for ya?

[mijopaalmc]

No, science.

Good enough for ya?

Actually, no. You made a statement in direct contravention of the evidence offered without making any effort to refute the evidence. Natural selection, whose randomness (more properly, probabilicity or stochasticity) of which is at issue here, is based on probabilities. Most often, there is a range of genomes upon which it acts, which have different probabilities of surviving and reproducing. Thus, natural selection at most favors those genomes that have a high probability of surviving and reproducing and disfavors those that don't. This makes it a probabilistic or stochastic process because we cannot determine for certain that an individual will survive and reproduce; we can only make a statement of how likely survival and reproduction are.

[CFLarsen]

Actually, no.

O....K. Science is not good enough for ya.

What is good enough for ya? The Bible?

You made a statement in direct contravention of the evidence offered without making any effort to refute the evidence. Natural selection, whose randomness (more properly, probabilicity or stochasticity) of which is at issue here, is based on probabilities. Most often, there is a range of genomes upon which it acts, which have different probabilities of surviving and reproducing. Thus, natural selection at most favors those genomes that have a high probability of surviving and reproducing and disfavors those that don't. This makes it a probabilistic or stochastic process because we cannot determine for certain that an individual will survive and reproduce; we can only make a statement of how likely survival and reproduction are.

Why is it my problem if you don't understand science?

[Meadmaker]

The fascinating thing is, He was just trying to pitch us high and inside so that we wouldn't crowd the plate so much. He never intended to give us first base.:)

[thaiboxerken]

Evolution says that life arose by chance just like chemistry says that H2O bonds by chance....

[Meadmaker]

Quite. The sense in which "random" just means that you don't know all the factors that come into play, but in which the event itself is completely deterministic and involves no randomness, per se. Of course, once we open that door, every event since the laws of the universe were settled is deterministic and there is no evidence for any randomness aside from quantum fluctuations, themselves not known, yet, to influence the macroscopic.



Yes, but only in the more restricted meaning of the word. That's why I asked.



It didn't "just" happen. The conditions were right. Luck had nothing to do with it. And I'm not talking about "fate".



Nothing's scary about it. It's just inaccurate.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. There was once a time when people thought that if you just knew all the initial conditions, you could know the state of the universe for all time, by projecting forward from the known starting point. Now, the consensus is that this is not the case. The quantum fluctuations are indeed enough to make macro-level changes. For example, the quantum fluctuations are indeed enough to make that dinosaur-killing asteroid miss, or to make another one hit.

Of course, the quantum fluctuations within the asteroid are not enough to make it miss, but when the asteroid was gathering itself from miscellaneous iron molecules and other elements ejected from stars, it would have formed differently, and billions of years later, it would have been in a different place. So, that very significant asteroid was indeed, in every sense, a random event.

At least, that's the consensus of the scientific world today. Perhaps some future discovery will refute that view, and we will learn that God does not play with dice after all. For the moment, the money is on the view that he does.

Or was that not what you meant?

[Meadmaker]

O....K. Science is not good enough for ya.

What is good enough for ya? The Bible?



Why is it my problem if you don't understand science?

Perhaps in some other thread, mijopaalmc has said something which might lead one to believe that he didn't understand science. However, the message to which you responded had no errors of any sort in it. He's absolutely correct.

I might add that he, and I, have been mostly echoing what Vorticity said earlier and he, too, was absolutely correct.

[mijopaalmc]

Why is it my problem if you don't understand science?

While it is certainly not your problem if I don't understand science, I contend that my explanations of why evolution is a stochastic process, while a little befuddled, don't belie a fundamental misunderstanding of science. This is mainly due to the fact that natural selection, which is the mechanism in question here, only makes it more probable that an organism with a specific fitness complement (i.e., subset of genes in genome that determine fitness) survives and reproduces. It is therefore that of two organisms with the same fitness complement, one will survive and the other will not. This is the definition of "stochastic" provided at Math World:

Stochastic is synonymous with "random." The word is of Greek origin and means "pertaining to chance" (Parzen 1962, p. 7). It is used to indicate that a particular subject is seen from point of view of randomness. Stochastic is often used as counterpart of the word "deterministic," which means that random phenomena are not involved. Therefore, stochastic models are based on random trials, while deterministic models always produce the same output for a given starting condition. (emphasis mine)

How much more evidence do one need to be convinced that evolution is a stochastic process?

Conversely, what is the specific evidence does on have that evolution is not random?

[CFLarsen]

While it is certainly not your problem if I don't understand science, I contend that my explanations of why evolution is a stochastic process, while a little befuddled, don't belie a fundamental misunderstanding of science. This is mainly due to the fact that natural selection, which is the mechanism in question here, only makes it more probable that an organism with a specific fitness complement (i.e., subset of genes in genome that determine fitness) survives and reproduces. It is therefore that of two organisms with the same fitness complement, one will survive and the other will not.

O.....K.

You have a better understanding of science than the world's combined scientists, Dawkins, Gould, and Eldredge in particular.

Gotcha.

By the way, who are you?

[Vorticity]

I'd given up on this thread as hopeless, due to some fundamental misunderstandings that people seem to be having about the meaning of the word 'random', but I just had to comment on this:

O.....K.

You have a better understanding of science than the world's combined scientists, Dawkins, Gould, and Eldredge in particular.

Gotcha.

By the way, who are you?

Really, Claus, as you very well know, this kind of argument from authority doesn't carry much weight around here...

...but since you bring them up, I have very little doubt that the scientists you name above would show no hesitation in admitting that evolution is random in the technical sense of the term.

[I less than three logic]

Well, this thread has been pretty pointless it seems. It only goes to show why we must agree upon the meaning of a term before using it within a debate. :)

[CFLarsen]

I'd given up on this thread as hopeless, due to some fundamental misunderstandings that people seem to be having about the meaning of the word 'random', but I just had to comment on this:

Really, Claus, as you very well know, this kind of argument from authority doesn't carry much weight around here...

It isn't an argument from authority. The authority comes from the weight of their scientific argument.

...but since you bring them up, I have very little doubt that the scientists you name above would show no hesitation in admitting that evolution is random in the technical sense of the term.

Have you asked them?

[Meadmaker]

Claus' objections aside, anyone can see that evolution is a random process. Also, the origin of life is not, as Ken suggested, as inevitable as the combination of oxygen and hydrogen into water. Dawkins in "The God Delusion" notes that as far as we know, it has happened exactly once, and while we suspect it happens much more commonly than that, we have no idea how it happened or how frequently it happened.

We can combine oxygen and hydrogen in a lab, and create water, and do it again and again. We can't make life, yet. In 1952, we managed to take raw materials and make amino acids (the Miller-Urey experiment, which made the "primordial soup"). In the 55 years since then, we have gone from making amino acids to...making amino acids. We just don't know how the process of life generation works.

So, what's the objection to the phrase "by chance"? We all agree that there is no purpose or plan involved. We all ought to agree that the process is governed by random events. What's the problem with "by chance"?

Certainly part of the answer is the misuse of the phrase by advocates of Intelligent Design. A few have talked about the "tornado in a junkyard" model of organism and/or DNA assembly, and it would be understandable to get irked when someone says "by chance" and means that. However, I don't think that explains the whole of the objection to the term. With or without tornadoes and junkyards, the whole process is still governed by chance. Dawkins himself says as much in his discussion of the anthropic principle, although he won't use the term "by chance". He notes that however unlikely it is that life arises, it obviously did at least once, or we wouldn't be here to talk about it. That whole discussion is laced with talk of probabilities and improbabilities, but not "chance". Why not?

I think it's because the mind recoils at the implied lack of significance in the term "by chance". Dawkins waxes eloquently, especially in chapter 10 of TGD, of the grandeur of nature. Saying we are here "by chance" seems to demean either that grandeur or our place within it, and I think that even Dawkins is susceptible to the need to take some significance from it.

Saying we are here "by chance", somehow seems to lessen our significance. Is the universe grand? Well, I guess so, but it's really just coincidence. Are we the end product of billions of years of evolution, an amazing process by which simple atoms combine, and then recombine in such startling ways that we end up with us, amazing creatures that can paint the Sistine Chapel? Certainly we are, but a mosquito is just as much the end product of the same process. (And of course, neither is an "end product", just an intermediate.) It may be that the development of complex, intelligent, life is almost inevitable given the right conditions of gravity and heat on a developing planet, or it may be that the coming together of the first replicator was an amazingly improbable event that has happened once in the billions of years of our galaxy's existence. Either way, it is by chance that we exist, because even under the right conditions, the specific events that caused intelligent bipedal mammals to emerge from the evolutionary process are unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere.

Assuming, as most of us do, that there is no "God", no "designer", no "higher power" or "supernatural entity", then we are here by chance.

What's the problem?

[T'ai Chi]

Great post!

[CFLarsen]

anyone can see that evolution is a random process.

*BING*

Thank you for calling.

[mijopaalmc]

Claus, you have yet to describe why you think that evolution is non-random. You have not offered any counterevidence in this thread. (I apologize in advance if you have offered evidence elsewhere and would very much appreciate it if you would point me to it.) What have done is say "no" every time someone says that evolution is random and insult people when they continue to disagree. No-one appreciates that kind of behavior, and I think that, even though I am not a moderator, I am within my rights to ask not to post in this thread anymore if you insist on acting like a child.

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you have yet to describe why you think that evolution is non-random. You have not offered any counterevidence in this thread. (I apologize in advance if you have offered evidence elsewhere and would very much appreciate it if you would point me to it.) What have done is say "no" every time someone says that evolution is random and insult people when they continue to disagree. No-one appreciates that kind of behavior, and I think that, even though I am not a moderator, I am within my rights to ask not to post in this thread anymore if you insist on acting like a child.

Try post #39, 52, 58, 61, 67. In fact, try reading the whole thread. There are also others.

And, just so you understand: It is not me who has to present counterevidence. If you want to argue against evolution, you are the one who has to present any kind of evidence.

[Vorticity]

Try post #39, 52, 58, 61, 67. In fact, try reading the whole thread. There are also others.

And, just so you understand: It is not me who has to present counterevidence. If you want to argue against evolution, you are the one who has to present any kind of evidence.

What are you talking about?

None of the people in this thread who are arguing that evolution is random in the technical sense are arguing against evolution. At the very least, I know I'm not, and I'm quite certain that Walter Wayne, Meadmaker, and mijopaalmc aren't, either. This is really a cheap rhetorical trick on your part, trying to tar us with some kind of creationist brush. mijopaalmc is right. You're being childish.

The simple fact is that anyone who has even a little knowledge about the mathematics of probability can see that evolution is random according to the technical definition of the term. That definition has been posted before in this thread and elsewhere. If you want to argue that evolution does not fit that definition, then do so. But please try to present actual arguments, rather than just contradiction. If you do not have the background to present such an argument, then please stop posting gibberish and leave this thread to those that do.

[mijopaalmc]

Here's another thing that's been bugging me:

...
If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.



This idea has been stated in several forms in this thread, i.e. that while the mutation process is certainly random, the process of natural selection by which less-well-adapted variants are culled from the population is deterministic.

This seems to me to be a highly dubious claim. I'm having trouble seeing how the natural selection process could be completely deterministic. Certainly, the more-well-adapted variants will have a higher chance of surviving and reproducing. Perhaps siginificantly higher. Likewise, a poorly-adapted variant will have a much higher chance of becoming lunch. But it's not a certitude. These probabilities are not 1 and 0.

To put it another way, suppose we know the set of gene/allele frequencies of a population in a given generation. Even if we suppose that no mutation events will occur between this generation and the next, we cannot in advance specify the precise gene/allele content of the next generation. There is still significant randomness left over. Who will be eaten, who will reproduce, how much will they reproduce, etc. Now of course this is a sort of 'directed randomness', in the sense that the more adapted variants have a much better chance. But this does not suddenly make it nonrandom.

Who said that natural selection is deterministic?

It is "deterministic", as in "whatever works", but there's no higher goal apart from that. A better term could be utilitarian.

I don't know if you genuinely cannot grasp the concept or if you are being willfully ignorant.

If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.

Random mutations create the variety of genes available for natural selection to act on, but non-random selection determines which genes will reproduce in each successive generation.

Oh, I almost forgot. You are ignoring me, not for any ad hominem insult,, but because I, like many others you ignore, have pointed out errors in your claims. Apparently you cannot tolerate criticism of your claims.

That was a very accurate account of what evolution is.

I'll steal that. :)

Yes, but we can only do it once, because the species would have evolved into something different. Not a lot of difference, but different nonetheless.


I just wanted to come back to one thing.

Who said that natural selection is deterministic?

Actually, you did:

But the "weeding out" isn't random.

In this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1385903&postcount=105

of this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50550&page=3
I pointed out that "deterministic" isn't (necessarily) the opposite of "random".

You can say it is "deterministic" for each generation. The next generation is not solely dependent on the preceding.

But evolution cannot be predicted exactly.


:confused: :confused: :confused:

Now I'm getting confused. Perhaps we're having some kind of jargon barrier.

Yes, evolution cannot be predicted exactly. That is precisely my point.

If it cannot be predicted exactly given a precise description of the current state and history of the system, then it is random. That's what random is. If it could be so predicted, then it would be deterministic. Deterministic is the opposite of random.

I think you are agreeing with me without knowing it.

Nope. I know I am disagreeing with you. :)

Evolution isn't random, in the sense that there aren't limitations to what the next generation will be like. Two furry polar bears can get a polar bear with slightly longer fur - but two furry polar bears won't get a slug.

Similarly, evolution isn't deterministic, in the sense that you can predict exactly what the offspring will be like. You have all sorts of influences: Environment, mutated genes, you name it.

Try post #39, 52, 58, 61, 67. In fact, try reading the whole thread. There are also others.

And, just so you understand: It is not me who has to present counterevidence. If you want to argue against evolution, you are the one who has to present any kind of evidence.

Just for clarity's sake I have quoted all of the posts the to which you have directed me and re-re-read the entire thread. In not a single one of them do you offer anything beyond your own assertions and the innuemrate explanations of probability theory by other posters, let alone any independent confirmation from those authorities on evolutionary biology whom you suggest I consult. I and other posters have offered independently attested definitions of "probabilistic", "random" and "stochastic", explanations of why evolution fits those definitions, and refutation of the arguments that evolution is non-random by any but the widest and most incoherent definitions.

Furthermore, you insist that you don't need to present any evidence of your own. This is a classic evasion tactic that skeptics use and is called the burden of proof fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html). While I realize that burden of proof usually lies on the one making the claim, not only is this always done as a convention rather through some sort of logical justification, but also every positive claim to knowledge, whether it takes the form "I know (that) p" or "I know (that) not p", needs to have evidence to support it. Usually, support for the latter argument is shown by demonstrating that an alternative explanation is much more plausible or that p has an internal contradiction that renders it meaningless or impossible. This, though, is completely ignored by skeptics who assume a "default state of the universe" (DSU) and then claim that they do not need to present evidence of the DSU because it is by definition right. However, when the DSU is based on the sum total of human empirical knowledge, as most DUS's are nowadays, they need support of their own, especially since, as it is so often claimed by skeptics, the information is so easily accessible to everyone involved. The other part of the fallacy is that the burden of proof is often set too high for one side, which means that it is often impossible for one side to demonstrate their argument convincingly no matter how much evidence they present. For instance, creationist of demand to see one species changing into another, which just doesn't happen in the sense that there is a smooth morph that can be detected by the human eye, such as in this The Simpsons intro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEyt8qqaWD8

Similarly, those insist that evolution is non-random have ignored the definitions and explanations those who argue that evolution is random have present, without presenting any evidence in rebuttal. They seem to be operating under a definition of random that does not appear in any dictionary and excludes probability as part of it.

Now I ask again, does anyone who has contributed to this thread have evidence that evolution is non-random in rebuttal of the definitions of random that have already been posted?

[Meadmaker]

*BING*

Thank you for calling.

You're welcome. Glad to be of service.

This time, it's free. You can continue to receive high quality philosophical support on our fee-based thought support line in the future.

[CFLarsen]

What are you talking about?

None of the people in this thread who are arguing that evolution is random in the technical sense are arguing against evolution. At the very least, I know I'm not, and I'm quite certain that Walter Wayne, Meadmaker, and mijopaalmc aren't, either. This is really a cheap rhetorical trick on your part, trying to tar us with some kind of creationist brush. mijopaalmc is right. You're being childish.

Let's see.

Vorticity, Walter Wayne, Meadmaker, mijopaalmc, T'ai Chi (him too, yes):

Each of you, please follow the postulate "Evolution is random in a technical sense" to the door.

What does that mean in terms of real-life evolution? How does it apply?

E,g, does it in any way indicate, or make possible, an intelligent designer?

[mijopaalmc]

Again, Claus, what is your evidence that evolution is non-random?

[CFLarsen]

Again, Claus, what is your evidence that evolution is non-random?

I take it you don't think I have provided evidence. If you want to believe that, fine with me.

Let's see if you can follow your own argument to the door. Can you?

What does that mean in terms of real-life evolution? How does it apply?

E,g, does it in any way indicate, or make possible, an intelligent designer?

[Walter Wayne]

Let's see.

Vorticity, Walter Wayne, Meadmaker, mijopaalmc, T'ai Chi (him too, yes):

Each of you, please follow the postulate "Evolution is random in a technical sense" to the door.

What does that mean in terms of real-life evolution? How does it apply?

E,g, does it in any way indicate, or make possible, an intelligent designer?Neither a random nor a non-random evolution make an intelligent designer impossible or necsaary. The reason being is that the intelligent designer is so ill-defined (even when they really mean the christian God, as he remains rather ill-defined as well).

A random evolutionary process would require miraculous interventions along the way to get from abiogenesis to humans guaranteed. Acts of gods and such, like chucking in a meteor here and there to switch things up when things aren't going your way.

A non-random evolutionary process would mean a hypothetical designer would just set things in motion billions of years ago and humans, the apple of his eye, would come about as planned.

Fact is, unless proponents of designers (Gods or otherwise) are willing to pin some characteristics on said entity there is no physical reality you can propose which means anything to said proponents.

Having said that, developing a system that requires constant intervention to keep in going the way you want seems to me to be a rather stupid design.

So random evolution would seem to me to be the worst case for scenerio for a proponent of intelligent designer. Random evolution is a good argument for no designer. If there is one said designer chose a rather inefficient method of bringing about his creation (lots of intervention required), or said designer is indifferent, we aren't "the apple of his eye" made on purpose in his image.

Think about automating a plant. The fact the production line needs intervention by workers or techniciens is seen as a short coming. We seek to minimize randomness in our designs because it is so much more efficient. If there is an intelligent designer, he is dumber than people.

A question for you. What does "follow the postulate to the door" mean?

[Walter Wayne]

I take it you don't think I have provided evidence. If you want to believe that, fine with me.
Restate it for us.

[CFLarsen]

Neither a random nor a non-random evolution make an intelligent designer impossible or necsaary. The reason being is that the intelligent designer is so ill-defined (even when they really mean the christian God, as he remains rather ill-defined as well).

A random evolutionary process would require miraculous interventions along the way to get from abiogenesis to humans guaranteed.

*BING*

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Try again.

Acts of gods and such, like chucking in a meteor here and there to switch things up when things aren't going your way.

But meteors aren't divine intervention.

A non-random evolutionary process would mean a hypothetical designer would just set things in motion billions of years ago and humans, the apple of his eye, would come about as planned.

There you have it: Your argument makes it possible for an intelligent designer. You are arguing in favor of ID.

A question for you. What does "follow the postulate to the door" mean?

Take it to the logical end.

[CFLarsen]

Restate it for us.

Is there something you didn't understand?

[Walter Wayne]

*BING*

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Try again.*BING*

The result of abiogenesis is the starting point for evolution.

Try again.
But meteors aren't divine intervention.
No kidding.
There you have it: Your argument makes it possible for an intelligent designer. You are arguing in favor of ID.An argument for non-random evolution also makes it possible for an intelligent designer. In fact it makes it possible for a more tradition caring god as a designer.

Your arguing for the christian god. :o

[benji]

There you have it: Your argument makes it possible for an intelligent designer. You are arguing in favor of ID.


You really don't get it, do you?

A Random process actually means anything but ID (It's ID, not RD!). A deterministic (completely non-random-in the technical sense of the word) process means someone *might* have determined something from the start - so your point of view could actually be used for making a point for ID, although still a weak one.

[Walter Wayne]

Is there something you didn't understand?Yes, what your evidence for non-random evolution was.

[CFLarsen]

*BING*

The result of abiogenesis is the starting point for evolution.

Try again.

Look, are you discussing abiogenesis or evolution? Make up your mind.

No kidding.

So why bring it up? Don't waste my time with irrelevancy.

An argument for non-random evolution also makes it possible for an intelligent designer. In fact it makes it possible for a more tradition caring god as a designer.

Your arguing for the christian god. :o

You really don't get it, do you?

A Random process actually means anything but ID (It's ID, not RD!). A deterministic (completely non-random-in the technical sense of the word) process means someone *might* have determined something from the start - so your point of view could actually be used for making a point for ID, although still a weak one.

Nonsense. It would only be true if we didn't have natural explanations for evolution.

Yes, what your evidence for non-random evolution was.

See post #112 for reference.

[benji]

Nonsense. It would only be true if we didn't have natural explanations for evolution.



So what you are saying is that, should we find another planet with life on it, it would have to be an exact copy of earth, because that's the only way it could have turned out to evolve?

By the way: "natural explanations for evolution" do not rule out a designer. You are still making a case for god if you say it's non-random in the technical sense of it. Randomness doesn't just include chemical processes. It also means that someone - or luck - guided that one meteor.

Take the hammerhead shark. The most accepted hypothesis today is that its unusual head didn't form through (slow) evolution, but is the result of a mutation. One of the many that occur, but one of the extremely few that survive and found itself a niche. Without that one (random) genetic defect, there wouldn't be hammerhead sharks.

But I guess a big part of the debate stems from you confusing rhetorical and technical arguments.

[Walter Wayne]

Post number 39.
That was a very accurate account of what evolution is.

I'll steal that. :)
So with all the talk about trivial vs. non-trivial systems, you think a trivial one is an accurate account of evolution. Why?

Why would a selection mechanism that is so simple be an "accurate account" of a complex system?

Why would a system where individual results were independent of each other be an "accurate accout" of a system with heredity.

Other posts to follow.

[Walter Wayne]

Yes, but we can only do it once, because the species would have evolved into something different. Not a lot of difference, but different nonetheless.The result would be different if you ran it again, the very definition of randomness.

And where is your evidence that it would be "not a lot difference". Can you say that about a complex system with many interdependent species?

[Walter Wayne]

I pointed out that "deterministic" isn't (necessarily) the opposite of "random".

You can say it is "deterministic" for each generation. The next generation is not solely dependent on the preceding.If it was solely dependent on the preceding generation you'd have made an argument for a non-random system. What your statement says is not evidence one way or the other.

[Walter Wayne]

But evolution cannot be predicted exactly.How is that evidence for non-random evolution? It is better evidence for technically random evolution than non-random, and it is pretty much one of the layman definitions of random.

[Walter Wayne]

Nope. I know I am disagreeing with you. :)

Evolution isn't random, in the sense that there aren't limitations to what the next generation will be like. Two furry polar bears can get a polar bear with slightly longer fur - but two furry polar bears won't get a slug.
You mean evolution isn't unbounded, which isn't what random means in the technical or layman's sense.

Similarly, evolution isn't deterministic, in the sense that you can predict exactly what the offspring will be like. You have all sorts of influences: Environment, mutated genes, you name it.
No evidence there for non-random evolution, not any that doesn't fit as well with random evolution.

So that concludes following your link to the so called evidence provided. Half of it wasn't evidence at all, and the half that was equally suited to random evolution.

[CFLarsen]

So what you are saying is that, should we find another planet with life on it, it would have to be an exact copy of earth, because that's the only way it could have turned out to evolve?

No.

By the way: "natural explanations for evolution" do not rule out a designer. You are still making a case for god if you say it's non-random in the technical sense of it. Randomness doesn't just include chemical processes. It also means that someone - or luck - guided that one meteor.

Which has a natural explanation.

Take the hammerhead shark. The most accepted hypothesis today is that its unusual head didn't form through (slow) evolution, but is the result of a mutation. One of the many that occur, but one of the extremely few that survive and found itself a niche. Without that one (random) genetic defect, there wouldn't be hammerhead sharks.

How did it mutate? Through chemical processes? Through radiation? All have natural explanations.

But I guess a big part of the debate stems from you confusing rhetorical and technical arguments.

I am using scientific arguments.

Post number 39.

So with all the talk about trivial vs. non-trivial systems, you think a trivial one is an accurate account of evolution. Why?

Why would a selection mechanism that is so simple be an "accurate account" of a complex system?

Why would a system where individual results were independent of each other be an "accurate accout" of a system with heredity.

Other posts to follow.

The result would be different if you ran it again, the very definition of randomness.

And where is your evidence that it would be "not a lot difference". Can you say that about a complex system with many interdependent species?

If it was solely dependent on the preceding generation you'd have made an argument for a non-random system. What your statement says is not evidence one way or the other.

How is that evidence for non-random evolution? It is better evidence for technically random evolution than non-random, and it is pretty much one of the layman definitions of random.

All of these are questions arising from my explanations. So you do understand what I am saying, you just don't agree with it.

[Walter Wayne]

All of these are questions arising from my explanations. So you do understand what I am saying, you just don't agree with it.Are you going to answer them?

[CFLarsen]

Are you going to answer them?

Do you admit that I did give my evidence for non-random evolution was?

[Walter Wayne]

Do you admit that I did give my evidence for non-random evolution was?You have used the "I asked questions first" tactic on this bulletin board, why have the rules changed?

As I stated you have given no evidence was more favourable to a non-random evolution than to a random evolution.

[JohnChasWebb]

What on earth does that prove? Einstein was an atheist and he achieved far more than Russell Stannard, therefore atheism wins!

As for evolution being random, yes the mutations are random but the process by which their success is determined (natural selection) is anything but.

As the man himself put it:
Einstein was not an atheist. Quite the contrary...

2 of many spiritual Einstein quotes immediately below.

1) I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

2) Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

See "simpletoremember.com/vitals/einstein.htm" for many more

[Meadmaker]

E,g, does it in any way indicate, or make possible, an intelligent designer?

No.

[Meadmaker]

What does that mean in terms of real-life evolution? How does it apply?


It means the outcome of any evolutionary process cannot be predicted with certainty. For example, we cannot predict that a million years from now, the descendants of humans will be smarter, or taller, or longer lived.

As another example, we cannot look at a proto-planet that happens to lie in the "Goldilocks Zone" of a star and predict that it will someday harbor intelligent life. We also cannot predict that it won't. It is, in principle, possible to assign a probability that intelligent life will evolve on such a planet, but we do not yet have the knowledge to make a reasonable statement about that probability.

One thing it most certainly does not mean is that we cannot make any predictions at all. That sentence has a double negative, so let's walk through it slowly to make sure it's understood. We can make predictions about random processes. While we cannot know the exact outcome of a random process (otherwise it would be a deterministic process), we can know the range of possible outcomes. When we roll two standard dice, we know that the sum might be 2, but it is more likely to be 7, and there is absolutely no chance that it will be 13.

Applying that to evolution, when two polar bears mate, we know that the offspring will be a polar bear and not an ostrich. However, there is a chance that it will be a polar bear with a genetic mutation and if that mutation is favorable, there will be more chance that it will be passed on to future generations. If the population of bears with such a mutation is isolated, there might be more mutations in the future, and at some point, the variations in the population of bears will be sufficiently large that the descendants of the mutant bears won't be able to mate with the original polar bears. If that's the case, then the descendants of those original polar bears will not be polar bears.

Finally, back to the original example about intelligent life on a protoplanet, we cannot say with certainty that intelligent life will evolve, or will not evolve. If it does evolve, we can say it did so "by chance".

[steenkh]

Einstein was not an atheist. Quite the contrary...
Einstein was a deist, if not an outright atheist. His "god" was nature or the universe itself, not the Christian god. He has even written an entire essay about why he does not believe in a personal god.

[Belz...]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. There was once a time when people thought that if you just knew all the initial conditions, you could know the state of the universe for all time, by projecting forward from the known starting point.

Assuming quantum fluctuations have no real effect, that would be true.

Now, the consensus is that this is not the case. The quantum fluctuations are indeed enough to make macro-level changes. For example, the quantum fluctuations are indeed enough to make that dinosaur-killing asteroid miss, or to make another one hit.

Source ? So far all the stuff I've seen says otherwise.

Of course, the quantum fluctuations within the asteroid are not enough to make it miss, but when the asteroid was gathering itself from miscellaneous iron molecules and other elements ejected from stars, it would have formed differently, and billions of years later, it would have been in a different place. So, that very significant asteroid was indeed, in every sense, a random event.

Well that would take a whole load of pretty much non-random fluctuations for that to accumulate, wouldn't it ?

At least, that's the consensus of the scientific world today. Perhaps some future discovery will refute that view, and we will learn that God does not play with dice after all. For the moment, the money is on the view that he does.

My money's on the view that he doesn't exist.

[Meadmaker]

Source ? So far all the stuff I've seen says otherwise.

I'll see what I can find.

My money's on the view that he doesn't exist.
Well, yes, but I was of course quoting Einstein, and talking about Einstein's God, i.e. nature.

[steenkh]

Whoops! I said that Einstein was a deist. That was wrong: Einstein was a pantheist. I am sorry if I have caused any confusion.

[Meadmaker]

Source ? So far all the stuff I've seen says otherwise.


I accidentally answered this in the "other thread" on evolution and randomness.

So, if anyone has read this twice, sorry.

I looked up the whole asteroid question. I can say a couple of things with certainty. (No random numbers here.)

1. Way back in non-linear dynamics class, I remember in the explanation of chaotic dynamics that the professor said that even if you knew the initial position of a chaotic system (his example was the break of a set of billiard balls) to the limit imposed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, you wouldn't be able to predict where the billiard balls would end up. I infer that quantum variation is enough to result in macroscopically observable differences.

2. The prevailing theory of why the universe is nonuniform, with galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc, involves quantum fluctuations during the expansion phase immediately following the big bang. I infer that if quantum fluctuations can move a galaxy, they can move an asteroid.

I'm fairly certain that cosmologists and astronomers would disagree with you. Once the properties of the asteroid were know, it could be accurately predicted.

But the asteroid didn't start out as an asteroid. It started out as hydrogen atoms, that fused to helium atoms, that eventually became iron and other atoms, that attached to each other as dust, that gradually accumulated into pebbles, that stuck together into a really big rock. I'm fairly certain that somewhere along the line, something happened that might have resulted in that asteroid being a few meters away from where it was, and after a few billion years in orbit, that few meters could grow to a few thousand kilometers, and that would be enough to make it miss, at least on that particular orbit.