Intelligent design's predictions [Archive] - Page 2

Ichneumonwasp

13th November 2007, 09:40 PM

What exactly is your argument, Ichneumonwasp?

Mine has always been that because phenotype does not full determine survival and reproduction, evolution is a stochastic process taking the phenotype as the initial conditions for selection. This is the argument which articulett and cyborg have been so vehemently rejecting. There is always some vague causal and deterministic structure of the individual's interactions with the environment and how that effect survival and reproduction, but that misses the central point of my argument which is that, regardless of the causes, effect is that individuals of the same phenotype do not necessarily share the same fate.

I have argued over and over that it is the perspective one takes that produces this confusion.

So, we take the example of an asteroid hitting the earth. Your argument says we can't predict that, so it is a random event. The dinosaurs' phenotype did not help them survive, so random occurrences play into the mix. They would have been fine without the asteroid, but "boom" and unpredictably they are dead.

Their viewpoint is that dinosaurs' phenotypes do answer the question. It is just that there is a new selection pressure in the environment that permits the little mammals and little reptiles to live while the behemoths die. And there is nothing truly random about the asteroid because if we had the proper knowledge we could have predicted not only the hit but the consequences of the hit. "Random" is merely surrogate for human ignorance.

If you look too closely at the process you have no choice but to speak in term of probabilities. From a further distance, it all looks more deterministic.

There are, of course, (probably) truly random occurrences at subatomic levels. Few, if any, doubt that seriously. Those random occurrences can and do impact the evolutionary process, but for the most part when we use that word we only mean it as a surrogate. We know so little that we are forced to speak of probabilities. That is why we developed the mathematics of probability in the first place -- so that we could speak intelligibly of such things. But those probabilities are not the realities (unless we assume Heisenberg's uncertainty rules all; Schrodinger and his cat certainly didn't think so for the macro level). They are just an approximation of what goes on in the universe because we can't know it all.

From one possible way of looking at it (very close), everything is random (it's all ruled by the uncertainty principle); from another, and with enough knowledge of the smeared particulars, everything is determined. What you are doing is arguing from a middle ground and applying a word of convenience. There is nothing wrong with that, but you need to be aware of what you are describing. That middle ground of description creates all the confusion in the free-will debate. I think it serves the same function here as well.

FireGarden

14th November 2007, 01:45 AM

The basic problem with the argument for those who insist that evolution is non-random so far is not a scientific argument; it is a philosophical one.

What's the problem with that?
Do you regard crystallisation as a random process? No-body can predict which exact atom goes where. No-body can predict every imperfection in a crystal. Etc.

And yet clearly, the result of crystallisation is a structure with a pattern. Where before there was no pattern.

If you want a strict definiton of a random process as one where the outcome is not accurately determined, then fine. But that is not every possible sense of random.

A process which sorts random input is not one which I would regard as a random process. Which is why, when saying that evolution is random, I think a qualification is required. Evolution is random like crystallisation is random.

Wowbagger

14th November 2007, 08:22 AM

The fact is that the empirical evidence points to the fact that the genetic make-up of an individual (which can be established with certainty) does not fully determine its survival and reproduction and the interactions that cause the individual's survival and reproduction cannot be established with absolute certainty and a probably can never be. This is all true, near as I can tell.

However, one of the points I was making is that the other factors that determine survival and reproduction fall into the fitness landscape. If we can know absolutely everything about both the genes and the landscape, evolution would be very determinable (if there is such a word). Of course, we probably never can know all that stuff.

We call evolution "stochastic" because it is difficult to predict its outcomes to any precise degree. Not because it is really random. (That is why Tai's sig is so misleading.)

The basic problem with those that argue that evolution is non-random is that they (excluding Paul and Wowbagger) lack sufficient finesse to distinguish a scientific argument from a philosophical one and science from woo.
aritculett, cyborg, and Ichneumonwasp all have their magic phrase that excuse them from presenting any evidence that evolution is non-random:
(snip) Well, thanks for excluding me from your list of philosophers. But, I must defend my friends on this forum, when they are right (and, as you know, I am willing to call them out when they are wrong).

I severely doubt articulett, cyborg, Ichneumonwasp, etc. have the problems you think they do. There is nothing in their posts, on this thread, that indicates they can not separate science from woo. Maybe they are just not as good as communicating science to you, as I happen to be*. But, if you take the time to study what they are trying to say, you will find they are more-often-than-not based on solid science.

(* Not sure why that would be, though. It might be a matter of patience rather than writing ability.)

Of course, it does not help matters, when participants choose to spit ad homs and accusations, instead of arguments and explanations. (And, I will not defend any of that behavior.) But, if you are really willing to learn anything from any Internet forum, you have to make some effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Mine has always been that because phenotype does not full determine survival and reproduction, I agree. But, once again, I must remind you that the other factors that determine these things are known.

This is the argument which articulett and cyborg have been so vehemently rejecting. There is always some vague causal and deterministic structure of the individual's interactions with the environment and how that effect survival and reproduction, but that misses the central point of my argument which is that, regardless of the causes, effect is that individuals of the same phenotype do not necessarily share the same fate. I think you are missing something. articulett and cyborg can correct me if I am wrong, but I think they would both agree with my points: Yes, the genome and its subsequent phenotypes are not the sole determination of survival and reproduction. That is why evolution is stochastic: difficult to predict. There is also the fitness landscape to take into consideration. Taken together (perhaps with elements of self-organizing complexity laws?), the process is no longer random.

Maybe their language was not clear enough for some people. Or, I could be wrong, and they really do think the way you think they do. Either way, I'd like some feedback from my friends' assessment of these points.

The basic problem with the argument for those who insist that evolution is non-random so far is not a scientific argument; it is a philosophical one. If that is true, then it follows that the basic reason why we can never predict exactly where a hurricane will strike is not due to lack of scientific accuracy, it must be because hurricanes are merely philosophical. ;)

(If you think there is some aspect of the natural process of evolution that is really, truly, random, then you tell us what it is.)

T'ai Chi

14th November 2007, 08:34 AM

But anyway, back to the topic of the thread.

Isn't one of the predictions that "junk" DNA will be found to have actual use?

cyborg

14th November 2007, 08:51 AM

Or, I could be wrong, and they really do think the way you think they do.

There are numerous "correct" models that can be used. mijo doesn't seem to like this but it's an artefact of what it means "to model".

Wowbagger

14th November 2007, 10:25 AM

Isn't one of the predictions that "junk" DNA will be found to have actual use?
1. Show me where the theory of Intelligent Design predicted this.

2. Show me that all DNA is expressed as genes with phenotypes that impact the life form. (and therefore "junk" DNA would have actual use)

Ichneumonwasp

14th November 2007, 10:57 AM

To be fair, ID would have to predict that junk DNA has a purpose, since everything must have a purpose in ID (not that they actually predicted it, but that is beside the point).

The problem, of course, is that even with "junk DNA" playing a regulatory role, this does not provide support for ID. Besides, there is only evidence for the regulatory role being played for some regions of junk DNA. ID would need to postulate that all junk DNA plays a necessary role. There simply is no evidence of this.

IIRC the folks who predicted that junk DNA should have some actual function according to ID were detractors of ID. It just turns out that some of it does serve some function, which is really interesting and one of those things that keeps us all interested in science.

mijopaalmc

14th November 2007, 11:52 AM

There are numerous "correct" models that can be used. mijo doesn't seem to like this but it's an artefact of what it means "to model".

So would you care to explain why there have 85 years if research on modeling evolution as a stochastic process if "it's an artefact [sic] of what it means 'to model'"?

Again, whether or not evolution by natural selection is random seems to depend on what one chooses as ones initial conditions. If one chooses just the genes in the phenotype (which can be known with absolute certainty), evolution by natural selection is random because, as has been stated before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2732655#post2732655), individuals of the same phenotype do not all share the same "fate". If one chooses just the genes in the phenotype (which can be known with absolute certainty) and some properties of the environment (which cannot be known with absolute certainty), evolution by natural selection is non-random because, as has been stated before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2732655#post2732655), individuals are unique because they have all experienced different environmental conditions.

cyborg

14th November 2007, 12:23 PM

If one chooses just the genes in the phenotype (which can be known with absolute certainty) and some properties of the environment (which cannot be known with absolute certainty), evolution by natural selection is non-random because, as has been stated before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2732655#post2732655), individuals are unique because they have all experienced different environmental conditions.

You said you consider something deterministic if the same initial conditions lead to the same result.

You've killed your own argument and you're too dense to see why there's always an inherently different initial condition for any entity you might consider "the same as X."

Your notion, therefore, that selection is non-deterministic if two "identical" things are not both "selected" rests on your inability to properly consider what "identity" entails.

NOTHING is strictly identical in the physical world.

Ichneumonwasp

14th November 2007, 12:30 PM

So would you care to explain why there have 85 years if research on modeling evolution as a stochastic process if "it's an artefact [sic] of what it means 'to model'"?

Again, whether or not evolution by natural selection is random seems to depend on what one chooses as ones initial conditions. If one chooses just the genes in the phenotype (which can be known with absolute certainty), evolution by natural selection is random because, as has been stated before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2732655#post2732655), individuals of the same phenotype do not all share the same "fate". If one chooses just the genes in the phenotype (which can be known with absolute certainty) and some properties of the environment (which cannot be known with absolute certainty), evolution by natural selection is non-random because, as has been stated before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2732655#post2732655), individuals are unique because they have all experienced different environmental conditions.

I'm not sure of some of the syntax above, but no one speaks of phenotype alone when discussing evolution by means of natural selection. That would make no sense. As a side issue to highlight just how non-sensical a notion this is: even when it comes to discussions of nature/nurture (an arbitrary distinction of no real worth), it becomes abundantly clear very quickly that the genotype alone is not the answer to phenotype. Phenotype cannot be explained on the basis of genotype by itself since there are always environmental factors that play into the full expression of phenotype (phenotype depends not simply on the existence of a set of genes, but on the expression of those genes at certain times and in certain places with the activation of those genes at the whim partially of environmental factors; not to mention the impact that the maternal immune system may play in some disease states and/or adult orientations).

Evolution by means of natural selection can only be understood by examination of phenotype within an environment.

mijopaalmc

14th November 2007, 12:34 PM

You said you consider something deterministic if the same initial conditions lead to the same result.

You've killed your own argument and you're too dense to see why there's always an inherently different initial condition for any entity you might consider "the same as X."

Your notion, therefore, that selection is non-deterministic if two "identical" things are not both "selected" rests on your inability to properly consider what "identity" entails.

NOTHING is strictly identical in the physical world.

If you only consider the genes that contribute to the phenotype (and there are genes that are neither selected for or against) as your initial conditions, it is possible to have identical initial conditions.

What is hard for you to understand about that?

cyborg

14th November 2007, 01:02 PM

If you only consider the genes that contribute to the phenotype (and there are genes that are neither selected for or against) as your initial conditions, it is possible to have identical initial conditions.

What is hard for you to understand about that?

Nothing.

What is so hard for you to understand that making strong statements from your clearly incomplete model is fallacious?

It also makes me wonder about the problems you have understanding the notion of abstractions ignoring differences when you have just done so in that model in order to make something "the same".

Wowbagger

14th November 2007, 02:52 PM

To be fair, ID would have to predict that junk DNA has a purpose, since everything must have a purpose in ID (not that they actually predicted it, but that is beside the point). All right, I guess ID would imply that all DNA would be useful. But, ID would also predict that DNA could not change much within a species, since that would lead to a different design, all on its own. (See, if different designs could emerge on their own, why postulate that there must have been a designer designing all these various life forms?)

And reality seems to fail both those expectations. So, ID can make predictions, I guess. Just not very good ones.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html :

It has long been known that some noncoding DNA has important functions. (This was known even before the phrase "junk DNA" was coined.) However, there is good evidence that much DNA has no function:

Sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism (Nóbrega et al. 2004).
Some sections of DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA, but mutations in them, such as stop codons early in the sequence, show that they cannot have retained the same function as the coding copy.
The fugu fish has a genome that is about one third as large as its close relatives.

Ichneumonwasp

14th November 2007, 04:19 PM

All right, I guess ID would imply that all DNA would be useful. But, ID would also predict that DNA could not change much within a species, since that would lead to a different design, all on its own. (See, if different designs could emerge on their own, why postulate that there must have been a designer designing all these various life forms?)

And reality seems to fail both those expectations. So, ID can make predictions, I guess. Just not very good ones.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html :

Yep. As far as I can see, ID's predictions (it can make some) have all failed (at least those of any worth). When we see them scurrying about making ad hoc changes, which they have already done, then they show their true colors.

Of course, the favorite theist explanation often rises -- "Oh we can't really know the mind of the creator/designer" -- "so we can only make very provisional predictions."

Wowbagger

14th November 2007, 05:12 PM

Of course, the favorite theist explanation often rises -- "Oh we can't really know the mind of the creator/designer" -- "so we can only make very provisional predictions." Tell them "Good luck!" when testing the first, and "who doesn't?" when making the second. :D

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

14th November 2007, 05:42 PM

To be fair, ID would have to predict that junk DNA has a purpose, since everything must have a purpose in ID (not that they actually predicted it, but that is beside the point).
Why would it have to predict that? The designer could be a slob who doesn't clean up after himself. Or he could have realized that a bunch of junk DNA is good fodder for ... evolution!

Given that intelligent design is nothing more than an inference from human design, I think junk is a perfectly fine result.

~~ Paul

Ichneumonwasp

14th November 2007, 06:38 PM

Why would it have to predict that? The designer could be a slob who doesn't clean up after himself. Or he could have realized that a bunch of junk DNA is good fodder for ... evolution!

Given that intelligent design is nothing more than an inference from human design, I think junk is a perfectly fine result.

~~ Paul

Yeah, I guess I really shouldn't make assumptions.

But I bet Asherah really gets tired of picking up the divine socks and getting the lazy bastid off the couch what with the seventh day equalling millenia. Bet he has a great beer supplier.

articulett

14th November 2007, 08:02 PM

Evolution by means of natural selection can only be understood by examination of phenotype within an environment.

Indeed... higher organisms evolved to be shaped (and programmed) by their environment... just like brains are designed to process input from the senses...

Human are "programmed" to learn the language and customs of their culture and seek to fill a niche in their groups.

Organisms evolved to adapt to and survive the stresses of their environment... those that did-- passed on their adaptive genes.

To not understand this is just not to understand natural selection. You don't convey information by saying-- mutations happen randomly, and what survived is determined randomly (or even probabilistically). It's muddled. You say mutations happen irrespective of whether they benefit an organism or not. And the environment acts as the elimination round to see what DNA builds the best replicators in that environment.

I cannot understand the semantic acrobatics of those who must insist that scientists think this all came about "randomly".

Scientists don't. Creationist think scientists think that. And they will bend the language however they can to pretend to themselves and others that scientists are saying that. But none are. No expert on evolution considers natural selection a "random process"-- and it produces very "non-random" results-- it produces complexity and the appearance of design-- things that seem to fit together amazingly well. They fit together because they evolved together. The environment selects the best replicators for that environment.

articulett

14th November 2007, 08:09 PM

Lots of junk DNA once had a purpose... lots of it just went along for the ride in otherwise successful genomes because they caused no harm. DNA looks exactly like one would expect the code to look if Darwin's theory was true. I would imagine an intelligent designer would have a better "signature". Why would he leave in mutated Vitamin C genes that no longer worked? I think it's funny how ID always have to play semantic games to imagine they predicted this much... when clearly things like the vitamin C bumble point to a very bumbling designer-- not intelligence. Ugh. It was delightful watching this dishonest crowd get slammed on the Nova Special. Lies, excuses, apologetics, obfuscation, pedantry, and righteous ignornace in the name of Jesus.

Beerina

15th November 2007, 08:21 AM

there is nothing to stop a designer from designing us to work exactly as if we evolved through random mutation and natural selection, there is no place to go with that.

This suggests a deceiver god, and old-school theologians had a serious problem with that.

It cropped up in the question of whether Adam and Eve had bellybuttons. If they didn't, then modern humans aren't quite "in the image of God". If they did, then it suggests God created structures for processes that never actually happened.

Did the trees have tree rings? Was the light from Andromeda already 99.999% of the way here? Were the dinosaur bones in the ground, which was created to look like radioactive elements had been decaying for a hundred million to billions of years?

If you ask me, the idea of an infinitely powerful and good god has been stretched well past the breaking point, like the old luminiferous ether concept shortly before it was abandoned.

articulett

15th November 2007, 10:32 AM

Yes, but evolution is the first to plant the seed of god's destruction... If humans evolved from apes... then that is some pretty important information that god left out-- moreover, it makes the whole original sin thing into a parable at best. But god killed his kid (who was really him) in some bizarre atonement scheme that is based on that parable. But who kills their kid for a parable? I can see why theists are nervous. But religious children are taught not to ponder the subject too deeply and are generally schooled in apologetics, so I don't think evolution leads necessarily to atheism... but I think there needs to be a lot of cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, lack of curiosity, and the like to prop up faith once one really understand evolution.

six7s

15th November 2007, 10:38 AM

... so I don't think evolution leads necessarily to atheism...

Are there any genuine and noteworthy evolutionary scientists who are also religious fundamentalists?

Wowbagger

15th November 2007, 10:47 AM

so I don't think evolution leads necessarily to atheism...Are there any genuine and noteworthy evolutionary scientists who are also religious fundamentalists?That doesn't matter. Evolution could also lead to agnosticism, deism, secular humanism, etc. All sorts of alternatives like that, which are not necessarily athiesm.

articulett

15th November 2007, 10:52 AM

Are there any genuine and noteworthy evolutionary scientists who are also religious fundamentalists?

Well there's Francis Collins-- an evolutionary biologist in the U.S.-- he's an evangelical Christian... but he understands and accepts evolution and doesn't endorse "intelligent design"-- His god "lies outside the laws of nature"-- but I don't knowhow he fits the Jesus story into all that. But there you have it. Only in America. But it's probably good that there are some religious scientists, because the court case was about Darwinism leading to atheism and evolutionary scientists who are religious can calm those fears.

But, as Dawkins says, it really can lead to atheism. And he was glad he wasn't called to testify, because who would want to dodge and weave about the fact that it does. And yet the scientific education of kids in America hinged on this case.

articulett

19th November 2007, 04:41 PM

Science News:

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study

ScienceDaily (Nov. 19, 2007) — A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm

Let the Mijo/T'ai spin begin.

Wowbagger

19th November 2007, 04:46 PM

Science News:
How is this "news"? We already knew this. ;)

(or at least the general concept of convergent evolution, if not the specific example of roundworms.)

Let the Mijo/T'ai spin begin.Indeed.

I know T'ai will try to spin it. But, perhaps Mijo might already know better. Am I right, Mijo?

quixotecoyote

19th November 2007, 04:53 PM

If anyone's interested in a more comprehensive look at this and has JSTOR access, may I suggest:
Discussion Note: Indeterminism, Probability, and Randomness in Evolutionary Theory
Alex Rosenberg
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 68, No. 4. (Dec., 2001), pp. 536-544.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248%28200112%2968%3A4%3C536%3ADNIPAR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

eta: oops. That's good too, but I meant to post

Determinism, Realism, and Probability in Evolutionary Theory
Marcel Weber
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 68, No. 3, Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. (Sep., 2001), pp. S213-S224.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248%28200109%2968%3A3%3CS213%3ADRAPIE%3E2.0.CO%3B 2-X

eta:

Just finsihed this one. Also very good.

On the Dual Nature of Chance in Evolutionary Biology and Paleobiology (http://www.jstor.org.proxytest.missouristate.edu/view/00948373/di015488/01p0006j/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi %3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3drandomness% 2bevolution%26wc%3don&frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=920771d8@smsu.edu/01c0a8487360261165a864cde&currentResult=00948373%2bdi015488%2b01p0006j%2b0%2 cFF3F&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00948373/di015488/01p0006j/1%3fsearchUrl%3dhttp%253a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%253fhp%253d25%2526si%253d1%2526gw%253 djtx%2526jtxsi%253d1%2526jcpsi%253d1%2526artsi%253 d1%2526Query%253drandomness%252bevolution%2526wc%2 53don%26frame%3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d92077 1d8@smsu.edu/01c0a8487360261165a864cde%26currentResult%3d009483 73%252bdi015488%252b01p0006j%252b0%252cFF3F%26conf ig%3djstor%26PAGE%3d1&config=jstor&PAGE=0)
Gunther J. Eble
Paleobiology, Vol. 25, No. 1. (Winter, 1999), pp. 75-87.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0094-8373%28199924%2925%3A1%3C75%3AOTDNOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

quixotecoyote

19th November 2007, 05:09 PM

To sum up: There's is and has been a continuing argument over the meaning and use of random, chance, and stochastic within the scientific community with many credible scientists on both sides.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

19th November 2007, 05:13 PM

ScienceDaily (Nov. 19, 2007) — A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms.
Whatever. Evolution is still random.1

~~ Paul

1. This is the footnote that a reasonable person would include to expand upon the simple label "random." I refuse to include it, however.

mijopaalmc

19th November 2007, 06:51 PM

I think that the major problem with the article is that ity never actually define what they mean by "random". As I have said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a probabilistic/random/stochastic system can't exhibit orderly and "unidirectional" behavior, which is exactly what the article seems to be implying when it says:

For example, they concluded that the number of cell divisions needed in vulva development declined over time -- instead of randomly increasing and decreasing. In addition, the team noted that the number of rings used to form the vulva consistently declined during the evolutionary process. These results demonstrate that, even where we might expect evolution to be random, it is not. (emphasis mine)

The point is that if the decrease in the number of cells needed for vulvar development was favored by natural selection, the individuals who possessed this trait would produce more offspring on average than those who didn't possess it, causing the trait to become fixed in the population. However, the fact that the individuals who required fewer cells for vulvar development produced more offspring on average that those who didn't possess it says nothing about the precise number offspring produced by each individual who required fewer cells for vulvar development. It is the ability to describe the average or mean behavior of an ensemble of individuals over long periods of time when describing the behavior of each individual separately is either impractical or impossible that makes evolution a stochastic process.

Wowbagger

19th November 2007, 09:48 PM

I think that the major problem with the article is that ity never actually define what they mean by "random". (I guess I was wrong. He is spinning the article. :blush: )

I think the point of the article is that a wide variety of vulva development processes and histories, in ringworms, has converged on a single "design" (or at least closely similar set of "designs"). If we can show that the emergence of such systems is inevitable in a given fitness landscape, it gives further credability to the idea that evolution is non-random, in practically every sense of the word.

quixotecoyote

19th November 2007, 10:21 PM

quixotecoyote

19th November 2007, 10:34 PM

I was unable to access the article "Evolution:Help for the Confused" (April 1979 BioScience 29:238-241)

But in a letter in its defense, the author clarifies a misunderstanding very similar to yours and articulett's
eta:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568%28197907%2929%3A7%3C397%3ARP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N
Author's Reply
Norton's comments on my use of the term
random process make a valid point, but I prefer
to keep my categories clearly defined. As I
point out in the article, the term stochastic is
available and in use for the sort of "random"
process he describes, which is biased in favor
of one particular outcome. All biological
processes are stochastic, rather than purely
or absolutely random in the sense I have
defined.

It follows that the ascription of natural
events in living systems to "pure chance" is
incorrect if, by that expression, absolute or
unbiased randomness is implied. Wagers may
be laid on a horse race, which is a stochastic
process in which no one expects that the
probability of winning is the same for all the
horses. On the other hand, no one would wish
to wager on the outcome of a game played
with dice such as Norton describes, since the
assumption underlying all games of chance is
that the process involved is purely or absolutely
random in the sense I have used.
BRADLEY T. SCHEER
Department of Biology (Emeritus)
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403As I've said. Some things may be said to be more random than others.

mijopaalmc

19th November 2007, 11:13 PM

(I guess I was wrong. He is spinning the article. :blush: )

I think the point of the article is that a wide variety of vulva development processes and histories, in ringworms, has converged on a single "design" (or at least closely similar set of "designs"). If we can show that the emergence of such systems is inevitable in a given fitness landscape, it gives further credability to the idea that evolution is non-random, in practically every sense of the word.

Of all people, I thought you would be the one to recognize when articulett is equivocating. The fact is that "random" has many different definition, some of which are mutually exclusive:
ran·dom (răn'dəm) pronunciation
adj.

Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
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

Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

ran·dom /ˈrændəm/ [ran-duhm]
–adjective

proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
Building Trades.

without uniformity: random-sized slates.
(of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
(of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.

Chiefly British. bank3 (def. 7b).
Building Trades. without uniformity
–noun
constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.
–adverb
at random, without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way: Contestants were chosen at random from the studio audience.

Main Entry:random
Function: adjective
Date: 1632

1 a: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b: made, done, or chosen at random <read random passages from the book>2 a: relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>
— ran·dom·ly adverb
— ran·dom·ness noun

Now, I am pretty sure that you are an intelligent person, so I don't need to go through and explain how each definition of "random" differs from the other ones. Needless to say there is a stark distinction between the "common" definitions of "random" which see "random" as being without design, pattern, plan, or purpose and the "mathematical" definitions (even the one that refers to "having equal probabilities") which see "random" as being related to probability.

Briefly, this has to do with the fact that probability is itself defined by a series of functions (which are themselves mathematical patterns). Therefore, the "mathematical" definitions distinguish themselves from the "common" definitions because they possess a property which the "common" definitions say that "random" should not possess (i.e., pattern). My problem with the ScienceDaily article thus arises: the article make it clear, by a series of juxtapositions (some which I have already cited), that it is using "random" is the "common" sense of lacking design, pattern, plan, or purpose (see, for instance, the comments on the "uniderictionality" of vulvar evolution) and not in the "mathematical" sense of pertaining to probability or chance and therefore doesn't address the central premise of evolution's "randomness" being based on probabilities. Unfortunately, as quixotecoyote has noted, the further equivocation of "random" meaning "equiprobable" further frustrates the discussion of the randomness of evolution. This is not to say that "random" cannot mean "lacking design, pattern, plan, or purpose" or "equiprobable", but it is to note that people seems to prefer to equivocate clearly stated definitions to avoid discussing evolution as being "random".

cyborg

19th November 2007, 11:34 PM

What exactly is it about the fact that summing up any process as "random" or "non-random" gives precisely zero information about it that isn't getting through?

quixotecoyote

19th November 2007, 11:35 PM

Have you missed that no one is just leaving it at that?

cyborg

19th November 2007, 11:39 PM

Selection is deterministic with respect to phenome.
Mutation is non-deterministic with respect to genome.

Anything else is arguing metaphysics.

quixotecoyote

19th November 2007, 11:43 PM

Everyone else is arguing what to label evolution as a whole.

As I mentioned, I've been on JSTOR and EBSCO pulling up articles. This is not an open and shut issue. There are arguments going on between actual biologists as to evolutions determinacy. There seems to be a majority calling it random or stochastic, but I'm not claiming I've read close to all the articles on the subject.

The attitude that it is a closed issue that only idiots would differ on goes to show the truth and irony of articulett's sig.

cyborg

19th November 2007, 11:45 PM

Everyone else is arguing what to label evolution as a whole.

Er yes - that would be the problem I described above.

I know - how's about we label evolution as a whole "evolution"?

The attitude that it is a closed issue that only idiots would differ on goes to show the truth and irony of articulett's sig.

The idiotic thing is not to realise the arbitrariness of the decision.

mijopaalmc

19th November 2007, 11:55 PM

What exactly is it about the fact that summing up any process as "random" or "non-random" gives precisely zero information about it that isn't getting through?

Have you missed that saying that evolution is "random" still provides a mechanism for adaptive optimization without all the hand waving about "infinite machines" or "deterministic frameworks"?

cyborg

19th November 2007, 11:58 PM

Have you missed that saying that evolution is "random" still provides a mechanism for adaptive optimization without all the hand waving about "infinite machines" or "deterministic frameworks"?

Sufficiently large numbers are good enough to simulate infinity.

But then why should I be surprised that you don't get it when you still insist the model is reality?

mijopaalmc

20th November 2007, 12:03 AM

Sufficiently large numbers are good enough to simulate infinity.

But then why should I be surprised that you don't get it when you still insist the model is reality?

I actually do understand that, at sufficiently large system sizes, the behavior of a finite system approaches that of an infinite system, but you don't seem to understand that there are still measurable differences between an extremely large finite system and an infinite system. Furthermore it is the properties of the mathematics of randomness that dictate a convergence to "determinism" at large system sizes and over long periods of time.

cyborg

20th November 2007, 12:07 AM

I actually do understand that, at sufficiently large system sizes, the behavior of a finite system approaches that of an infinite system, but you don't seem to understand that there are still measurable differences between an extremely large finite system and an infinite system.

At which point am I allowed to stop caring about those differences?

Furthermore it is the properties of the mathematics of randomness that dictate a convergence to "determinism" at large system sizes and over long periods of time.

Yes it is. So why are we still pretending there's a strict difference exactly?

mijopaalmc

20th November 2007, 12:17 AM

At which point am I allowed to stop caring about those differences?

That's the point: it's by and large arbitrary.

Yes it is. So why are we still pretending there's a strict difference exactly?

I'm not pretending, because there are mathematical ways of describing physical systems that leave no room for randomness at their most basic level. They are said to be deterministic in so far as there is only one possible outcome in existence given any given set of initial conditions. Probabilistic systems always have at least two possible outcomes, even if the probability is zero.

Think of it as the difference between the probability of hitting a dart board that consists of the entire universe and hitting a specific point or line on that dart board.

cyborg

20th November 2007, 12:20 AM

That's the point: it's by and large arbitrary.

I believe my point is made.

Think of it as the difference between the probability of hitting a dart board that consists of the entire universe and hitting a specific point or line on that dart board.

The point is the dart board.

quixotecoyote

20th November 2007, 12:20 AM

Every label is going to be arbitrary to some degree.

The issue of how to label evolution, how to describe it, is a question that has and is involving a significant number of professionals in the field.

The Concept of Evolution (http://www.jstor.org.proxytest.missouristate.edu/view/00264423/di984390/98p02736/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi %3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3drandom%2bev olution%26wc%3don&frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=920771d8@smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10&currentResult=00264423%2bdi984390%2b98p02736%2b0%2 c07&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00264423/di984390/98p02736/1%3fsearchUrl%3dhttp%253a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%253fhp%253d25%2526si%253d1%2526gw%253 djtx%2526jtxsi%253d1%2526jcpsi%253d1%2526artsi%253 d1%2526Query%253drandom%252bevolution%2526wc%253do n%26frame%3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d920771d8@ smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10%26currentResult%3d002644 23%252bdi984390%252b98p02736%252b0%252c07%26config %3djstor%26PAGE%3d1&config=jstor&PAGE=0)
R. J. Spilsbury
Mind, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 252. (Oct., 1954), pp. 544-545.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-4423%28195410%292%3A63%3A252%3C544%3ATCOE%3E2.0.CO %3B2-0
-endorses random with some definitional provisos

Random Drift and the Omniscient Viewpoint (http://www.jstor.org.proxytest.missouristate.edu/view/00318248/ap010254/01a00030/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi %3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3drandom%2bev olution%26wc%3don&frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=920771d8@smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10&currentResult=00318248%2bap010254%2b01a00030%2b0%2 cFF03&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00318248/ap010254/01a00030/7%3fsearchUrl%3dhttp%253a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%253fhp%253d25%2526si%253d1%2526gw%253 djtx%2526jtxsi%253d1%2526jcpsi%253d1%2526artsi%253 d1%2526Query%253drandom%252bevolution%2526wc%253do n%26frame%3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d920771d8@ smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10%26currentResult%3d003182 48%252bap010254%252b01a00030%252b0%252cFF03%26conf ig%3djstor%26PAGE%3d7&config=jstor&PAGE=0)
Roberta L. Millstein
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, No. 3, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. (Sep., 1996), pp. S10-S18.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248%28199609%2963%3A3%3CS10%3ARDATOV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4
-calls it non-deterministic, non-instrumental, but stops short of calling it random

Cornette, J. L., & Lieberman, B. S. (2004). Random walks in the history of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101(1), 187-91.
- evolution as a random walk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk)

Title:Chaos and Life: Complexity and Randomness in Evolution and Thought (Book).Authors:Cressler, Walter L. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:__doLinkPostBack%28%27detail%27,%27ss%257E%25 7EAR%2520%252522Cressler%25252c%2520Walter%2520L%2 52E%252522%257C%257Csl%257E%257Erl%27,%27%27%29;)1 Source:Library Journal (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:__doLinkPostBack%28%27detail%27,%27mdb%257E%2 57Eaph%257C%257Cjdb%257E%257Eaphjnh%257C%257Css%25 7E%257EJN%2520%252522Library%2520Journal%252522%25 7C%257Csl%257E%257Ejh%27,%27%27%29;); 11/15/2003, Vol. 128 Issue 19, p95-95, 1/6phttp://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.missouristate.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11427198&site=ehost-live -article disagrees with a book that calls evolution iterative and nonrandom

Random Evolution Processes with Feedback (http://www.jstor.org.proxytest.missouristate.edu/view/00029947/di970298/97p0005m/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi %3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3drandom%2bev olution%26wc%3don&frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=920771d8@smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10&currentResult=00029947%2bdi970298%2b97p0005m%2b0%2 cEFFF07&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00029947/di970298/97p0005m/1%3fsearchUrl%3dhttp%253a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%253fhp%253d25%2526si%253d1%2526gw%253 djtx%2526jtxsi%253d1%2526jcpsi%253d1%2526artsi%253 d1%2526Query%253drandom%252bevolution%2526wc%253do n%26frame%3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d920771d8@ smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10%26currentResult%3d000299 47%252bdi970298%252b97p0005m%252b0%252cEFFF07%26co nfig%3djstor%26PAGE%3d1&config=jstor&PAGE=0)
Kyle Siegrist
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 265, No. 2. (Jun., 1981), pp. 375-392.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9947%28198106%29265%3A2%3C375%3AREPWF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1
-from a mathematical view of evolution (non-biological)

The Evolution of Species? (http://www.jstor.org.proxytest.missouristate.edu/view/01605682/di011208/01p00163/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi %3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3drandom%2bev olution%26wc%3don&frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=920771d8@smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10&currentResult=01605682%2bdi011208%2b01p00163%2b0%2 c07&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/01605682/di011208/01p00163/1%3fsearchUrl%3dhttp%253a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%253fhp%253d25%2526si%253d1%2526gw%253 djtx%2526jtxsi%253d1%2526jcpsi%253d1%2526artsi%253 d1%2526Query%253drandom%252bevolution%2526wc%253do n%26frame%3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d920771d8@ smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10%26currentResult%3d016056 82%252bdi011208%252b01p00163%252b0%252c07%26config %3djstor%26PAGE%3d1&config=jstor&PAGE=0)
George W. Tyler
The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 38, No. 4. (Apr., 1987), pp. 373-374.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198704%2938%3A4%3C373%3ATEOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
-stochastic, but with an unusual idea that evolution should be considered primarily at a taxa higher than species

Title:Evolution probabilities and phylogenetic distance of dinucleotides.Authors:Michel, Christian J. (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:__doLinkPostBack%28%27detail%27,%27ss%257E%25 7EAR%2520%252522Michel%25252c%2520Christian%2520J% 252E%252522%257C%257Csl%257E%257Erl%27,%27%27%29;) 1 michel@dpt-info.u-strasbg.frSource:Journal of Theoretical Biology (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:__doLinkPostBack%28%27detail%27,%27mdb%257E%2 57Eaph%257C%257Cjdb%257E%257Eaphjnh%257C%257Css%25 7E%257EJN%2520%252522Journal%2520of%2520Theoretica l%2520Biology%252522%257C%257Csl%257E%257Ejh%27,%2 7%27%29;); Nov2007, Vol. 249 Issue 2, p271-277, 7phttp://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.missouristate.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27228342&site=ehost-live -stochastic, but I only read the abstract for this one.

A Statistical Test of Unbiased Evolution of Body Size in Birds (http://www.jstor.org.proxytest.missouristate.edu/view/00143820/sp030004/03x0089k/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi %3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3drandom%2bev olution%26wc%3don&frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=920771d8@smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10&currentResult=00143820%2bsp030004%2b03x0089k%2b0%2 c7F&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00143820/sp030004/03x0089k/5%3fsearchUrl%3dhttp%253a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%253fhp%253d25%2526si%253d1%2526gw%253 djtx%2526jtxsi%253d1%2526jcpsi%253d1%2526artsi%253 d1%2526Query%253drandom%252bevolution%2526wc%253do n%26frame%3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d920771d8@ smsu.edu/01c0a80a684ec51165bb14c10%26currentResult%3d001438 20%252bsp030004%252b03x0089k%252b0%252c7F%26config %3djstor%26PAGE%3d5&config=jstor&PAGE=0)
Folmer Bokma
Evolution, Vol. 56, No. 12. (Dec., 2002), pp. 2499-2504.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820%28200212%2956%3A12%3C2499%3AASTOUE%3E2.0.CO%3 B2-5
- not random/not unbiased, one of the more interesting ones to have a read through if you're interested in what we current can and cannot tell about the evolution of traits.

And of course, the articles I posted earlier.

mijopaalmc

20th November 2007, 12:32 AM

Here are a few more articles to add to quixotecoyote's list:

Author(s): Brunnander, B (Brunnander, Bjorn)
Title: What is natural selection?
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 22 (2): 231-246 MAR 2007

Author(s): Millstein, RL (Millstein, Roberta L.)
Title: Natural selection as a population-level causal process
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 57 (4): 627-653 DEC 2006

Author(s): Pigliucci, M
Title: Genetic variance-covariance matrices: A critique of the evolutionary quantitative genetics research program
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 21 (1): 1-23 JAN 2006

Author(s): Hinzen, W
Title: Spencerism and the causal theory of reference
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 21 (1): 71-94 JAN 2006

Author(s): Reisman, K (Reisman, Kenneth); Forber, P (Forber, Patrick)
Title: Manipulation and the causes of evolution
Source: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 72 (5): 1113-1123 DEC 2005

Author(s): Brandon, RN
Title: The difference between selection and drift: A reply to Millstein
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 20 (1): 153-170 JAN 2005

Author(s): Bouchard, F; Rosenberg, A
Title: Fitness, probability and the principles of natural selection
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 55 (4): 693-712 DEC 2004

Author(s): Pust, J
Title: Natural selection and the traits of individual organisms
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 19 (5): 765-779 NOV 2004

Author(s): Stephens, C
Title: Selection, drift, and the "forces" of evolution
Source: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 71 (4): 550-570 OCT 2004

Author(s): Walsh, DM
Title: Bookkeeping or metaphysics? The Units of Selection debate
Source: SYNTHESE, 138 (3): 337-361 FEB 2004

Author(s): Matthen, M
Title: Is sex really necessary? And other questions for Lewens
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 54 (2): 297-308 JUN 2003

mijopaalmc

20th November 2007, 12:35 AM

The point is the dart board.

And you missed the point again: points and lines have zero probability of being hit when part of a higher dimensional space, but they still exist.

cyborg

20th November 2007, 12:40 AM

And you missed the point again: points and lines have zero probability of being hit when part of a higher dimensional space, but they still exist.

I think you have missed the point.

mijopaalmc

20th November 2007, 12:46 AM

I think you have missed the point.

Only because you haven't stated it clearly.

Sets with zero probability exist, the empty set (or impossible event) being the most pervasive in probability theory. Sets for event that do not exist by definition do not exist.

JanisChambers

20th November 2007, 12:48 AM

I hate to be simple but if Intelligent design is indeed the case then it cannot be called intelligent. Am I to take the presence of wisdom teeth and an appendix as signs we have an intelligent (or competent) designer. Please tell me how our bodies are indication that we were designed?

cyborg

20th November 2007, 01:22 AM

Only because you haven't stated it clearly.

Well mijo you tell me: what is the consequence of a system where events with probability of zero occur?

quixotecoyote

20th November 2007, 01:31 AM

Here are a few more articles to add to quixotecoyote's list:

<snip>

How many of those were calling evolution deterministic/non-random and how many were calling it indeterminate/random/stochastic?

mijopaalmc

20th November 2007, 11:16 AM

Well mijo you tell me: what is the consequence of a system where events with probability of zero occur?

It doesn't occur. However, you are still missing the point that it still exists. This distinction is especially important when discussing convergence of random variables because not all systems converge pointwise (i.e., over all sets). Rather, they converge almost surely (i.e., over all sets that do not have measure or probability zero).

cyborg

20th November 2007, 11:21 AM

It doesn't occur. However, you are still missing the point that it still exists.

If I select an event it occurs. The choice is arbitrary. The occurrence is not.

mijopaalmc

20th November 2007, 09:44 PM

How many of those were calling evolution deterministic/non-random and how many were calling it indeterminate/random/stochastic?

I haven't read them all. In fact, the only one of which I have read more than the abstract is not on that list. However, it is clear from reading the abstracts that there is lively (and shockingly mostly civil) debate about the place of randomness in the description in evolutionary biology and that the issue is far from settled. As you mentioned before, the existence of such a debate adds an extra layer of irony to articulett's sig when she claim that evolution being non-random is a cut-and-fry.

Wowbagger

21st November 2007, 07:33 AM

What exactly is it about the fact that summing up any process as "random" or "non-random" gives precisely zero information about it that isn't getting through?
I do think this discussion is starting to get needlessly semantically confabulated.

I have stated my case as to why "random" is not a necessary word to use when describing evolution. Some people use that word, anyway, and it could still be deemed valid, depending on the definition.
I avoid it primarily because it causes confusion. A scientist might define random as "stochastic", but if a Creationist sees that word, they might assume it means something different: complete and utter random chance.

Although, it starts to get stupid when we fight over these silly things for pages on end, I want to make sure that these points are made clear, in the end.

Of all people, I thought you would be the one to recognize when articulett is equivocating. The fact is that "random" has many different definition, some of which are mutually exclusive: And that is precisely the reason I avoid using the word. It means too many different things to too many different people.

For a similar reason, I avoid describing myself as a "skeptic".

Now, I am pretty sure that you are an intelligent person, so I don't need to go through and explain how each definition of "random" differs from the other ones. Needless to say there is a stark distinction between the "common" definitions of "random" which see "random" as being without design, pattern, plan, or purpose and the "mathematical" definitions (even the one that refers to "having equal probabilities") which see "random" as being related to probability.
(snip) Right you are!

So, what were we fighting about, again?!

Oh, yeah! Your insistence that evolution is random, in some way. Right. Well, yeah, I guess it depends on the definition you choose. And, I hope you see my point, that that is exactly my point.

Selection is deterministic with respect to phenome.
Mutation is non-deterministic with respect to genome.

Anything else is arguing metaphysics. Well, you could argue that, while mutation is generally non-deterministic with respect to the genome, it could well be deterministic with respect to the environment (or fitness landscape, whichever term you prefer).

Sufficiently large numbers are good enough to simulate infinity. For our models, yes, it is good enough. But, we should never mistake our models for reality. Remember the old cliche: All models are inaccurate. Some models are merely more useful than others.

cyborg

21st November 2007, 10:33 AM

I have stated my case as to why "random" is not a necessary word to use when describing evolution. Some people use that word, anyway, and it could still be deemed valid, depending on the definition.

That is my point: either term is valid depending on the definition.

Statement A: "Egg frying is a random process."

Justification: inherent randomness in the universe makes egg frying a stochastic process not guaranteed to result in a fried egg."

Statement B: "Egg frying is a non-random process."

Justification: frying an egg follows a certain procedure.

Statement A and statement B are both totally useless at telling us what egg-frying actually is.

What worth are these descriptions?

Well, you could argue that, while mutation is generally non-deterministic with respect to the genome, it could well be deterministic with respect to the environment (or fitness landscape, whichever term you prefer).

Ah, but the description I give is the most generic - if mutation has a determinant from somewhere else it doesn't matter: the point is that the mutation is not explicitly driven by some derivative of the genetic code. The process does not rely on this at all - when it occurs interesting things can happen though.

For our models, yes, it is good enough. But, we should never mistake our models for reality. Remember the old cliche: All models are inaccurate. Some models are merely more useful than others.

Useful lies. I have pointed this out many times. The point with "sufficiently large numbers are good for infinity" is that they are good enough for the illusion of infinity. Actual infinity is actual infinity but we can't deal with that in an experiential way.

mijopaalmc

21st November 2007, 12:03 PM

That is my point: either term is valid depending on the definition.

Statement A: "Egg frying is a random process."

Justification: inherent randomness in the universe makes egg frying a stochastic process not guaranteed to result in a fried egg."

Statement B: "Egg frying is a non-random process."

Justification: frying an egg follows a certain procedure.

Statement A and statement B are both totally useless at telling us what egg-frying actually is.

What worth are these descriptions?

The above comment really demonstrates some inherent misunderstanding of what it means to be "random" at least in the way that I have been more than amply clear that I am using the word. If there is uncertanity about the final outcome, the system is random in so far as it is only describable in terms of probability. Yes, I understand that the randomness thus defined could be purely epistemic (i.e., the result of our lack of complete knowledge of the system and it initial conditions), but it seem that such a proposition is a fundamental assumption within the structure of the discussion rather than a conclusion from empirically observed data. In short, it seems that those who object to calling evolution by natural selection "random" do so either because they assume from the outset that evolution by natural selection isn't "truly" random or because they assume from the outset that nothing is "truly" random.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

21st November 2007, 12:57 PM

The above comment really demonstrates some inherent misunderstanding of what it means to be "random" at least in the way that I have been more than amply clear that I am using the word. If there is uncertanity about the final outcome, the system is random in so far as it is only describable in terms of probability. Yes, I understand that the randomness thus defined could be purely epistemic (i.e., the result of our lack of complete knowledge of the system and it initial conditions), but it seem that such a proposition is a fundamental assumption within the structure of the discussion rather than a conclusion from empirically observed data. In short, it seems that those who object to calling evolution by natural selection "random" do so either because they assume from the outset that evolution by natural selection isn't "truly" random or because they assume from the outset that nothing is "truly" random.
I object to calling evolution "random (full stop)" because it is confusing. It's precisely the same reason I object to calling computation random. Are you okay with calling computation random?

~~ Paul

cyborg

21st November 2007, 12:58 PM

If there is uncertanity about the final outcome, the system is random in so far as it is only describable in terms of probability.

The future is only describable in terms of probability.

but it seem that such a proposition is a fundamental assumption within the structure of the discussion rather than a conclusion from empirically observed data.

The past is describable without probability.

In short, it seems that those who object to calling evolution by natural selection "random" do so either because they assume from the outset that evolution by natural selection isn't "truly" random or because they assume from the outset that nothing is "truly" random.

The present is neither.

articulett

21st November 2007, 02:27 PM

See... His goal IS the same as Behe's-- he must describe evolution as random... even if it conveys no information about evolution. Cyborg's simple definition gives all the important information you need in regards to randomness. The article did as well. Nobody else seems to define "random" as uselessly as Mijo, and no biologist sums up evolution as "random"-- Mijo's loose definition of random is: "any process or thing in which any aspect can be described by a probability distribution"-- that is a very vague, misleading, and useless, definition. What can't be bended to fit that definition?

But he keeps saying it's accurate... it's the same as Behe's obsession with describing evolution as random from where I sit... and T'ai's too. They are attached to that word-- they cannot admit that evolution or parts of evolution are non-random in any way. Why? They cannot admit that it confuses more than clarifies to speak that way. They cannot convey HOW evolution brings about complexity and the appearance of design over time, because they do not actually understand natural selection.

Why are the obsessed with the "random" parts of evolution--as opposed to the part Darwin, Dawkins, and all biologists emphasize? I think it's because it's much easier to obfuscate understanding and dismiss scientific conclusions about evolution if you say "scientists think this all came about randomly". Biologists actually say, "no, this all came about via natural selection-- which is not random.... rather it preferentially selects from the pool of randomness achieving the appearance of design-- animals particularly well suited for their environment. The mutations didn't know to happen... but the lucky mutations that did happen were preferentially selected to go on and be a part of an evolving species.

Why would someone want to confuse that understanding? Unless perhaps they imagined themselves and expert on something no one else considered them an expert in? Why would someone ignore the most recent articles and peer reviewed topics regarding the best way to convey understanding? Unless their goal was not to convey understanding-- but to be "right" in their head.

The truth is the same for everyone. Why use confusing words to convey it and pretend that you are being technically correct and that everyone else is wrong or being philosophical and so forth? Why do that when there are no peer reviewed papers defining evolution as loosely as the "random crowd" is... and tons saying that evolution-- particularly natural selection are NOT random... and that it's confusing to speak about them as though they are. If you're talking about biology, why would you use the word random as used by biologists. I quotes the Berkeely evolution site and other sources where it was defined. Mijo, etc. has never quoted a source where anyone uses "random" as vaguely as he does. It just doesn't convey any information (as Cyborg as repeatedly noted). Randomness must be in relationship to something. Why doesn't Mijo understand the fried egg example or the careful coddling of wowbagger? Instead... he's like Kleinman... while everlastingly insisting that he has no agenda... he still shows a need to pop into threads and argue that "evolution is random" whether anyone else (except T'ai) finds that verbiage meaningful or not. How is his obsession different than Behe's obsession with the term?

articulett

21st November 2007, 02:34 PM

The future is only describable in terms of probability.

The past is describable without probability.

The present is neither.

Exactly... he speaks of mutations from a present point of view... and then he leaps into the past before natural selection so as to describe the outcome with probabilities...

He switches tenses in order to define evolution as random. We say, the mutation aspect was random... that which was selected from that randomness is not.

He says that the mutation was random and then jumps into the past and says, that because we don't know which will live and reproduce-- natural selection is random too. As though you are talking about the same kinds of "randomness" from the same point of view. It's so muddled. And he does it just so he can define evolution, in it's entirety, as random. In his head, if natural selection can be called random-- then that makes evolution a random process. He uses unpredictable aspects of the environment as a means of twisting his explanation about natural selection into the "it's random too" category... along with the switching of tenses and meaning mid definition. And it's unfixable. His brain must conclude that it somehow makes sense to sum up evolution as random. Just like Behe.

mijopaalmc

22nd November 2007, 09:58 AM

Exactly... he speaks of mutations from a present point of view... and then he leaps into the past before natural selection so as to describe the outcome with probabilities...

He switches tenses in order to define evolution as random. We say, the mutation aspect was random... that which was selected from that randomness is not.

He says that the mutation was random and then jumps into the past and says, that because we don't know which will live and reproduce-- natural selection is random too. As though you are talking about the same kinds of "randomness" from the same point of view. It's so muddled. And he does it just so he can define evolution, in it's entirety, as random. In his head, if natural selection can be called random-- then that makes evolution a random process. He uses unpredictable aspects of the environment as a means of twisting his explanation about natural selection into the "it's random too" category... along with the switching of tenses and meaning mid definition. And it's unfixable. His brain must conclude that it somehow makes sense to sum up evolution as random. Just like Behe.

This post and the one preceding just dhow how little articulett and cyborg (yes, I know cyborg didn't write either one of the posts I mentioned) understand what I am saying and how much they try and succeed to misunderstand my position. Even if mutation was compeltely determinstic, natural selection would still be random, because the variables that can be known with complete certainty do not fully determine either survival and reproduction or the number of viable offspring each individual whi reproduces produces.

Wowbagger

22nd November 2007, 10:22 AM

mijopaalmc

24th November 2007, 12:08 PM

six7s

24th November 2007, 12:20 PM

You know what, folks, as long as we all agree that the "747 Argument"*, and its ilk, are not a valid criticisms of science, I think it is best if we let this whole "random" argument end, already!!
Yeeesh!

(* You know, the one where a hurricane hits a junk yard, and just happens to twirl the junk around in such a way, that they happen to form a perfectly flyable 747 jet, as if Evolution is really as "random" as that.)But the ptroblem seems to be that those who prefer to call evolution by natural selection "non-random" don't see that calling evolution by natural slection "random" doesn't imply the "747 in the junkyard" comparison

This is only a problem for you mijo, presumably because you stubbornly refuse to consider, let alone admit, that you don't know what you are talking about

...they seem to have about the same understadning of probability theory (especially the laws of large numbers and limi theorems) as creationists do.

It may seem like that to you

To me, I think you should either brush up on stats and English* or simply desist from posting on any threads where the terms probablity, random, and/or evolution occur

-----------

ETA: * This is in reference to your use of the word 'imply' (not your spelling)

mijopaalmc

24th November 2007, 12:59 PM

This is only a problem for you mijo, presumably because you stubbornly refuse to consider, let alone admit, that you don't know what you are talking about

And this is exactly what your problem is: you continue to insist that I have no idea what I am tralking about while it is quite obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have given a fairly detailed description of what the defintion of mathmatical probability is and have also given a sensible explanation of how that relates to the empirical observation of evolution. I have explained that the "common" defintion, which you, articulett, and (strangely enough) creationists and intelligent proponents seem to be using, is almost antithetical to the mathematical definition in that the "common" definition is predicated on randomness having no pattern whereas that the mathmatical definition describes randomness in terms of functions (i.e., mathematical patterns). Furthermore, I have also explained that probability theory abounds with laws and theorems that require sequences of random variables to converge on specified values given constant sampling criteria.

You should really explain what you don't understand about my explanations rather than attacking my knowledge of the subject and my character. In other your should actually participate in the discussion rather than sitting on the sidelines and hurling insults.

mijopaalmc

24th November 2007, 01:02 PM

ETA: * This is in reference to your use of the word 'imply' (not your spelling)

And you should realize that there are many ways in which to use a given and that just because I use a word differently than you do (but still according to how it is defined in the dictionary) doesn't mean that I am stupid or that I am trying to obfuscate.

articulett

24th November 2007, 01:16 PM

Indeed. As a genetic counselor I was required to pass board exams on Bayesian statistics and probability. Mijo couldn't pass the most basic of such courses. He hasn't a clue, but imagines himself an expert. How fascinating that he would pretend that others have a creationist viewpoint when it is only the creationists who think that calling evolution "random" is explanatory. He couldn't explain natural selection to anyone, because he shows not a smidgen of understanding himself. This is a guy who came to this forum not understanding the "discontinuity" in the fossil record less than a year ago. And he thinks that someone other than him might pay attention to his drivel about evolution? Amazing.

Mijos postings in essence are all the same.

Scientists don't explain things right.
Evolution is random.
Articulett is a liar.
Not all religions are bad.
Those who criticize religion suck.
The experts suck.
I'm "technically correct".
What about this? "insert some reworked version of a creationist strawman"

I think I've summed it up, haven't I? Has anyone picked up some other message or gleaning?

What I want to know is if he watched the widely available viewing of the Dover Trial. Wouldn't anybody who imagined themselves experts on evolution and creationist tactics. Mijo pretends to have an expertise on both but shows no interest on any current developments on either. He has no interest in conveying information-- just confusing things in the same manner as Behe.

I know you want me to be nice wowbagger, but this is because you are assuming that mijo's integrity is on par with yours. Let Mijo, the imaginary expert, fight his own battles as he conveys Behe's "scientists think this all came about randomly" message to the world in an effort to convince himself. As far as I am concerned, this thread proves my conclusions rather well.

six7s

24th November 2007, 02:05 PM

And this is exactly what your problem is:
mijo, calm down and think

In the context of this thread (and many, many others on this forum) I have NO problem - other than occasionally and temprorarirly being naive enough to assume that detailed, convoluted and jargon-riddled posts are written by those who not only know that they are talking about but are also sincere in the intent to spread knowledge and encourage critical thinking

Luckily for me, this forum has more than enough members who not only do fit that description but are also commited to debunking pseudo-science

With regard to your posts on evolution, you do not fit into the latter group

This, I repeat, is not my problem

I have explained...

No

You haven't

You have waffled on ad nauseum on a tangent of your own devising to the point where you have clearly illustrated that you don't understand evolution

Furthermore, I have also explained that probability theory abounds with laws and theorems...

Ditto

You should...

Since when did you start making the rules?

...explain what you don't understand about my explanations

Again, this is not my problem

I do understand them

I understand that they are wrong

I suspect that you, of all people, will be aware that minimal knowlege with regard to the theory of evolution precludes neither a familiarity with probability theory nor comprehension of English - especially when presented clearly and concisely

......your should actually participate in the discussion rather than sitting on the sidelines and hurling insults.

Hello? Since when are the two mutually exclusive?

For my insults aimed at you, I suppose I ought to say sorry...

Alas, I can't as I make a point of reserving my apologies for times when I regret my actions

As you are evidently so thick-skinned as to be able to ignore simple facts (e.g. your dogged insistence that you are right and the experts are wrong with regard to evolution and randomness), I see no reason to suggest that you care one way or the other what other people think

For me, the only real problem with this thread is your incessant and inane ramblings from a self-appointed and self-deluding position of an expert authority

Thanks to the ignore feature of the forum software and the input of those who can and are qualified to explain, this problem has long since been resolved... although I still do receive an automated email notification every f[rule-eight]ing time you post... but this is a problem I can live with

Skeptic Ginger

24th November 2007, 03:16 PM

Note that this post follows the OP, rather than the ongoing discussion. Once again I have failed to notice 9 pages. Heck, I probably posted somewhere else in this thread myself. :rolleyes: Oh well, it's a good post so I'm sticking to it. ;)....With the exception of quantum leaps in architecture for which Behe coined the term "Irreducible complexity", the ID'ers seem to have entirely ignored these other expected features of intelligently designed artifacts. Needless to say, this is because there is a total absence of such features to be found anywhere in biology, and irreducible complexity currently amounts to little more than argument from ignorance or personal incredulity. But why is the ID hypothesis simply being dismissed as 'unscientific'? It's a reasonable hypothesis, it does make predictions of a sort, so why aren't the bastards being called out and made to explain why their designer designs with all the smarts of a drunken coot?

....Then the second point: the presumption that the designer must be god. No, this doesn't follow, maybe the Raelians are right and some space-alien did it. We know of at least one (semi) intelligent natural agent in this universe, and the most reasonable assumption is that if there has been intelligent designing going on, then it was done by some other intelligent natural agent; which may, for all we know, have evolved naturally. But again, god gets introduced and makes himself at home every time ID is discussed, whereas god is a complete non-sequitur. Why are the ID'ers allowed to run away over the hill with god every time?

I realise this has turned into a rant; but don't you think that ID'ers should rather be challenged on the absense of evidence for reasonably predictions made by ID, rather than just dismissing ID with the claim that it makes no predictions?You are missing the fundamental reason why ID isn't science. Irreducible complexity is, but ID is not. And your proposed predictions are just a tad off base because they indicate 'human design' rather than simply 'design'.

Irreducible complexity does make predictions. They all failed when genetic science confirmed evolution and disproved Behe's irreducible flagellum. Turns out precursors do not always have obvious structural similarities. You can look into that for yourself and see what was found to be the likely precursor to the flagellum.

Likewise precursors to the mammal eye exist in nature to this day. Eye precursors were denied by the ignorant in statements like, "What do you do with half an eye?" which was another claim made ID proponents that has been refuted. It sounds like you recognize irreducible complexity's predictions have all failed. But you are unclear why ID isn't science.

There are 'tests' which can be applied to artifacts that indicate 'human design'. We identified those characteristics from observations. One can for example predict if those characteristics are found that there will be additional evidence humans designed the item in question. That would be a prediction hypothesized by the determined characteristics of 'human design'. It is because we can identify human design that the illusion is easily accepted we can identify components which identify inherent 'design' itself.

ID isn't within the realm of science because science needs evidence of the designer. You cannot determine something was designed without first knowing something about the designer. Say you went to a planet no humans existed on. And you saw some things which were natural and some that were designed and built by aliens. But, neither of the two resembled anything at all on Earth. You really would have nothing to base a conclusion on some things were designed.

You say the designed things would have a function. But nothing here resembles anything on Earth. How would you know if the alien was using something it found or something it made? How would you know if the pieces which broke off the thing the alien was using (cleaned up) were broken off first and the alien then used the item, or the alien broke the things off?

The only way you would know any of this would be to observe the alien finding or building the object. Nothing about the object itself would be clear evidence it was designed or not. Even if you saw little things and noted what looked like things which had grown you wouldn't know if the alien just made different sizes. If the things were stuck in the ground you wouldn't know if they were growing there or had been stuck there, or even if they had fallen there and became embedded or maybe the ground got soft and they sank then the ground got hard again. An alien bird could even build what looks like a tree in order to live in the top of it.

The only reason we know things were designed is because we have observed their origins and the designer.

Intelligent design as it is used in this case really amounts to magical design. Magical design could be anything. The concept of ID is someone's fantasy based on the illusion one can see things which are inherent design features. But if it is magically designed then there are no inherent features.

We would have to show that science can test for magical things. Magical things, by definition, don't follow the laws of nature. If we observed something which didn't follow the laws of nature, we wouldn't stop and say, well that must be magic. We would say here is something not yet explained.

Science has a specific set of rules called the scientific process. The one rule all these god theories violate is the rule that when you are left with magic as the explanation you really have no explanation. What you have is an unanswered question, not a question answered by, "god did it" or it came about because of magic. What would your testable prediction be? Magic happens so we should look for more of it? Irreducible complexity can be tested. Had it passed the test one would merely be left with the question, how did this thing come about? One would not be left with the answer, it came about by a magical designer.

mijopaalmc

24th November 2007, 05:32 PM

six7s-

You, articulett, and cyborg have repeatedly ignored my explanations, choosing to remain ignorant about what I am saying. Instead you have substitutes childish insult for reasoned discussion.

Could you actually attack my argument rather that attacking?

Note this would actually require reading my posts and explaining what you fon't understand about them rather than dismissing what I say out-of-hand becasue you don't wnat to take the time to distinguish me from a creationist.

CapelDodger

24th November 2007, 05:49 PM

And you should realize that there are many ways in which to use a given and that just because I use a word differently than you do (but still according to how it is defined in the dictionary) doesn't mean that I am stupid or that I am trying to obfuscate.
The Humpty Dumpty take on communication.

Woolly talk reveals woolly thinking. I doubt you're trying to obfuscate, far more likely you're not recognising how vague are the ideas you're trying to put across. They may be sufficient unto you, but when brought out in public they fail to impress.

six7s

24th November 2007, 05:54 PM

six7s-

You, articulett, and cyborg have repeatedly ignored my explanations, choosing to remain ignorant about what I am saying.

mijopaalmc-

Your 'so-called' explanations have not been ignored, they have been debunked - something you seem incapable of acknowledging let alone comprehending

CapelDodger

24th November 2007, 06:02 PM

I suspect that you, of all people, will be aware that minimal knowlege with regard to the theory of evolution precludes neither a familiarity with probability theory nor comprehension of English - especially when presented clearly and concisely

That's the spirit :) ! Eschew obfuscation!

As you are evidently so thick-skinned as to be able to ignore simple facts ...

More precisely, the problem lies within a thick skull. As do so many.

mijopaalmc

24th November 2007, 06:06 PM

mijopaalmc-

Your 'so-called' explanations have not been ignored, they have been debunked - something you seem incapable of acknowledging let alone comprehending

OK, I'll bite.

Where have they been debunked without denying the validity of my definitions?

mijopaalmc

24th November 2007, 06:08 PM

More precisely, the problem lies within a thick skull. As do so many.

It's funny how rarely this comment is taken introspectively.

mijopaalmc

24th November 2007, 06:11 PM

The Humpty Dumpty take on communication.

Woolly talk reveals woolly thinking. I doubt you're trying to obfuscate, far more likely you're not recognising how vague are the ideas you're trying to put across. They may be sufficient unto you, but when brought out in public they fail to impress.

Actually, no.

It's just an acknowledgement that people often use word according to differeing defintion and that, if there is to be any fruitful discussion, the people involved have to agree on a common set of definitions. In other words, simply sayinfg that a word is defined differently does not inherently invalidate the argument.

More to the point, the definitions that are most frequently rejected by those who disagree with me are perfectly valid deifinitions used in other fields with which those who reject them may not be familiar.

CapelDodger

24th November 2007, 06:41 PM

The only reason we know things were designed is because we have observed their origins and the designer.

But Prometheus gave us fire, stolen from the gods, and without fire we'd have been designing none of it.

Intelligent design as it is used in this case really amounts to magical design. Magical design could be anything. The concept of ID is someone's fantasy based on the illusion one can see things which are inherent design features. But if it is magically designed then there are no inherent features.

Very nicely put. Unless some restrictions are applied to the Designer - such as "it did it for our sake out of love and goodness and a fiery anger that needed an outlet otherwise it just would have gone frickin' postal ...", for example only - then one cannot predict a signal of ID in any way.

"Irreducible Complexity" is just god getting chased into an ever smaller gap.

six7s

24th November 2007, 07:08 PM

Where have they been debunked without denying the validity of my definitions?

Try casting your mind back to the period between 14th May 2007 and 11th September 2007 when 2,597 posts were made in a thread that YOU STARTED called What evidence is there for evolution being non-random? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82155&page=65)

If you need help pin-pointing the debunking, try this search string:
Results 1 - 10 of about 57 from forums.randi.org for dawkins mijo "evolution is not random"
(http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BL%3Ahttp%3 A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlo go.gif%3BLH%3A75%3BLW%3A849%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&q=dawkins+mijo++%22evolution+is+not+random%22&btnG=Search&sitesearch=forums.randi.org)

OK, I'll bite

But will you swallow?

CapelDodger

24th November 2007, 07:09 PM

It's funny how rarely this comment is taken introspectively.

Do what now? I was simply drawing attention to the fact that all of this discussion, and even the existence of such a discussion, originates in the human brain. Inside the skull. Between one ear and another. Your beliefs and my way of thinking, they both come from the same place.

CapelDodger

24th November 2007, 07:28 PM

Actually, no.

Actually, yes. They really do fail to impress.

It's just an acknowledgement that people often use word according to differeing defintion and that, if there is to be any fruitful discussion, the people involved have to agree on a common set of definitions. In other words, simply sayinfg that a word is defined differently does not inherently invalidate the argument.

That's just an acknowledgement of your Humpty Dumpty defence - "I use words to mean anything I want" - followed by a failure to recognise that people (more dedicated than I) have been enthusiastically pushing the idea of definition on you since forever. The paragraph of yours I've just quoted makes no sense, typos aside. You're not going to communicate between one skull and another without some agreed definitions, and a shared language is the minimum.

More to the point, the definitions that are most frequently rejected by those who disagree with me are perfectly valid deifinitions used in other fields with which those who reject them may not be familiar.

Why should we be familiar with other environments? We were here, you came here, presumably from a more familiar environment. You're not tasty enough to be a lure, so you're here or you're there, but we're not following you.

mijopaalmc

24th November 2007, 11:13 PM

That's just an acknowledgement of your Humpty Dumpty defence - "I use words to mean anything I want" - followed by a failure to recognise that people (more dedicated than I) have been enthusiastically pushing the idea of definition on you since forever. The paragraph of yours I've just quoted makes no sense, typos aside. You're not going to communicate between one skull and another without some agreed definitions, and a shared language is the minimum.

So word don't have multiple meanings?

Could you explain to me what exactly the problem is with describing evolution by natural selection as "random" in the technical sense when such a description does not invalidate the overwhelming empirical evidence that has been collected ove the past 150 years and has additionally been used by many scientists (including many of the founders of the Modern Synthesis)over the last 85 years?

Wowbagger

25th November 2007, 09:19 AM

But the ptroblem seems to be that those who prefer to call evolution by natural selection "non-random" don't see that calling evolution by natural slection "random" doesn't imply the "747 in the junkyard" comparison, but they seem to have about the same understadning of probability theory (especially the laws of large numbers and limi theorems) as creationists do. So, now you have helped educate us that not all folks who call evolution "random", are referring to the "747 analogy".

We've all helped make it abundantly clear that there are other definitions of the word "random" that don't mean that.

Very well. Move along. Nothing more to see here., etc.

CapelDodger

25th November 2007, 02:49 PM

So word don't have multiple meanings?

They can, which is why we should concentrate on the sentence as the unambiguous unit of communication.

Could you explain to me what exactly the problem is with describing evolution by natural selection as "random" in the technical sense when such a description does not invalidate the overwhelming empirical evidence that has been collected ove the past 150 years and has additionally been used by many scientists (including many of the founders of the Modern Synthesis)over the last 85 years?

"In the technical sense" really doesn't hack it when it comes to disambiguation. Evolution isn't random, which is why it was spotted in the evidence before a convincing mechanism was proposed (Natural Selection) with good evidence for it presented.

Evolution is no more random than a game of Bridge is random, despite the cards being repeatedly shuffled.

mijopaalmc

25th November 2007, 05:55 PM

"In the technical sense" really doesn't hack it when it comes to disambiguation. Evolution isn't random, which is why it was spotted in the evidence before a convincing mechanism was proposed (Natural Selection) with good evidence for it presented.

Evolution is no more random than a game of Bridge is random, despite the cards being repeatedly shuffled.

Do you actually have any evidence for this statement beside "the results are orderly"?

Systems with rules are not necessarily non-random. Random variables are themselves rules, yet they are also quintessentially random.

cyborg

26th November 2007, 12:34 AM

"Quintessentially random" is a meaningless statement.

articulett

26th November 2007, 01:01 AM

"Quintessentially random" is a meaningless statement.

It sure is! In fact it's sort of redundant if you've defined everything as either "random" or not.

That's like a light switch being quintessentially "on".

Funny.

Pedants are funny.

mijopaalmc

26th November 2007, 08:59 AM

"Quintessentially random" is a meaningless statement.

No it isn't. Somethine that is quintessentailly random is something that is random by definition.

mijopaalmc

26th November 2007, 09:00 AM

Pedants are funny.

Maybe you should laugh at yourself then.

cyborg

26th November 2007, 09:54 AM

No it isn't. Somethine that is quintessentailly random is something that is random by definition.

It is, therefore, a meaningless statement since the word "quintessentially" adds no meaning.

T'ai Chi

26th November 2007, 01:16 PM

Are you claiming computation is as stochasticprocessy as evolution?

cyborg

26th November 2007, 01:22 PM

I doubt you would understand my answer.

mijopaalmc

26th November 2007, 02:29 PM

It is, therefore, a meaningless statement since the word "quintessentially" adds no meaning.

Maybe you should actually look up what "quintessential (http://www.answers.com/quintessential&r=67)" actually means before you insist that calling something "quintessentially random" adds no meaning. Random variable are the most typical example of randomness as defined by a set of rules and are therefore quintessentially random.

CapelDodger

26th November 2007, 03:16 PM

Do you actually have any evidence for this statement beside "the results are orderly"?

The process is orderly, and therefore not random.

Systems with rules are not necessarily non-random.

If a process is governed by rules it is necessarily non-random. Evolution is governed by rules just as a game of Bridge is, it just goes on longer and is more likely to cost you your life.

Random variables are themselves rules ...

Variables are not rules, they are variables.

... yet they are also quintessentially random.

It'll take more than that to weird me out, I've dealt with lawyers and MBA's in my time.

cyborg

26th November 2007, 03:16 PM

Give me an example of a non-quintessential randomness.

mijopaalmc

26th November 2007, 03:34 PM

Give me an example of a non-quintessential randomness.

And you have missed the point yet again: "quintessential" describes a particularly common example. For example, uniform, normal, and chi-squared random occur often in many applications of probability theory and statistics and therefore could be considered quintessential random variables. A Cauchy random, on the other hand, would not necessarily be considered quintessential because it is rarely used as an example of a random variable due to the fact is does not have a mean, a variance, or any other central moments. That said "quintessential" is not a real mathematical classification for random variable; it just described a particular common well known example.

cyborg

26th November 2007, 04:06 PM

That said "quintessential" is not a real mathematical classification for random variable; it just described a particular common well known example.

Then I respectively submit that saying something is "quintessentially" random provides no meaning.

mijopaalmc

26th November 2007, 04:13 PM

Then I respectively submit that saying something is "quintessentially" random provides no meaning.

And I submit that you should learn what "quintessential" means before you say something like that. Random variables are a common example of how randomness is described; there are also physical examples such as dice rolls or coin flips, some description are just more common than other and therefore trigger a cognitive association with randomness.

cyborg

26th November 2007, 04:22 PM

Random variables are a common example of how randomness is described; there are also physical examples such as dice rolls or coin flips, some description are just more common than other and therefore trigger a cognitive association with randomness.

So "quintessential" randomness means "randomness - whatever".

fishkr

26th November 2007, 06:25 PM

Actually, that's where you're wrong. Each phenotype confers a probability of survival upon its possessor and that makes natural selection random by definition. .

This is backwards. Natural Selection is the filter that strains phenotypic expression over time by favoring expressions that are more adaptive/fit. Phenotypes confer nothing but themselves. Selection is the engine of evolution. (Two competing metaphors in one para. sorry)

Thus Natural Selection is the opposite of random. There are elements WITHIN the process that are random, or undirected, such as random genetic mutation, but this doesn't make the process as a whole "random". A longer necked giraffe gets a few more leaves than his cousin, and thereby has more energy to pass on his genetic material, either by runnning faster or . . . whatever it is that giraffes do to get along. The neck length phenotype may have been a random mutation, but the process of survival and the effects of genetic success on species adaptation is highly directed, stochastic, non-deterministic.

I suppose if lions hunted by blindly swatting the air for giraffes then you could consider the process random . . .

When you go to Las Vegas and play roulette, the outcome of the the roulette-part of the process can be considered as a probability distribution. I think this is how you are using the word "random". The roulette can be thought of as "random mutation". If you happen to win, (fat chance) the outcome of the weekend will be different than if you lose. But what happens to you in Vegas, the booze, the hookers, the police, and how many criminals you may choose to enrich with your life savings, or if you survive long enough to pass your genetic material on to your spouse, (or they may not want to have anything more to do with you, once again, depending on the outcome at the Wheel), that's Darwin at work.:)

fishkr

26th November 2007, 06:53 PM

Do you actually have any evidence for this statement beside "the results are orderly"?

When the output is more ordered (has more information ) than the input. You know, something like a species existing and evolving over time.

Systems with rules are not necessarily non-random. Random variables are themselves rules, yet they are also quintessentially random.[/QUOTE]

Quit dawdling over terms like a sissy. Exlpain what is "random" about being eaten alive because you were slower than your fellow giraffe and therefore Selected by the lion? What does the word Selection imply? (Hint: it is something close to the opposite of random)

M

articulett

26th November 2007, 07:16 PM

Fishkr--

Your explanations are fantastic... but Mijo must do whatever he can so he, Like Behe, can conclude that "scientists think that life arose randomly"-- that means he must somehow define natural selection as "random". No matter what anyone says or describes-- he will always loop back to the idea that "evolution is a random process". It's weird, misleading, meaningless, and fails to explain the power of natural selection. Consequently, it's the favorite description of evolution for creationists. If people don't understand natural selection, a designer seems more likely.

Now why Mijo is beholden to that particularly term despite multiple fabulous explanations such as your as many experts saying the same-- even peer reviewed articles--? Why did he pop into this thread to inject his repeated conclusion that somehow it makes sense to call evolution "random"? Why do you suppose he imagines himself an expert although no actual expert in Biology would ever define evolution as vaguely as he does and all would be very generous in describing exactly how natural selection achieves the results it does--non-randomly? Why would he do so after pages of a thread he started asking about how evolution was nonrandom-- of which he did not absorb a single answer and ended up concluding that "evolution is random"?

I'm warning you so you will be aware that you are in one of those weird Twlight Zone loops where you think you are clarifying understanding, and he thinks he's winning a game in his head. To win points he must get the last word... and the last word must be that it makes sense to call evolution a "random process". It isn't you. The incompetents just are never aware that they are the incompetent ones. I don't know where he gets his imagined expertise since I don't think anyone here considers him an expert on anything. You are correct. He thinks he already knows all there is to know on the subject so he can't learn anything else.

It's fascinating, because Behe does the exact same thing. I love the Dover transcripts... it's such a weird thing to watch... they are so good at using words to evade points and not say anything at all while inferring all sorts of unsavory things about evolution and those who can explain how the appearance of design comes from the process itself-- no "intelligent designer" needed.

fishkr

26th November 2007, 07:41 PM

I submit .

I'll take you at your word.:p

M

fishkr

26th November 2007, 07:48 PM

Fishkr--

I'm warning you so you will be aware that you are in one of those weird Twlight Zone loops where you think you are clarifying understanding, and he thinks he's winning a game in his head. It's fascinating, because Behe does the exact same thing.

Thank you, and I know you're correct in this. It's just that my nature abhors a vacuum.:)

mijopaalmc

26th November 2007, 08:27 PM

fishkr-

You seem to have missed the crux of the argument where an organisms phenotype does not fully determine whether it produces offspring.

As far as I understand the mathematical modeling of evolution, the environment is an extremely complex function that maps the initial conditions (i.e., the organism's phenotype) to final results (i.e., the production of reproductively viable offspring). If, as I maintain, two identical sets of initial conditions can yield two different final results, the process is random. The problem with the continuing discussion is that people keep ignoring the fact that I have defined "random" in this way (which happens to be equivalent to "described by probability"). My argument could be very easily defeated if someone were to present evidence that individuals of certain phenotypes in a given population always produce reproductively viable offspring while individuals of all the other phenotypes in that same population never produce reproductively viable offspring.

fishkr

26th November 2007, 09:51 PM

fishkr-

You seem to have missed the crux of the argument where an organisms phenotype does not fully determine whether it produces offspring.

My argument could be very easily defeated if someone were to present evidence that individuals of certain phenotypes in a given population always produce reproductively viable offspring while individuals of all the other phenotypes in that same population never produce reproductively viable offspring.

Evolution Haiku:

The failure of generations speaks,

birch leaves compiled under snow

until spring

articulett

26th November 2007, 10:07 PM

Thank you, and I know you're correct in this. It's just that my nature abhors a vacuum.:)

My nature abhors vacuuming.

Of course that is neither here nor there.

(in fact, it may be "quintessentially random"--tee-hee)

mijopaalmc

26th November 2007, 10:11 PM

fishkr and articulett-

How would you respond to evolutionary biologist Graham Bell?

Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution (http://books.google.com/books?id=sdllt_xU-cYC&pg=PA93&dq=evolution-is-a-stochastic-process&ei=LyPfRsOJCJ2cowKsx7T3AQ&sig=2NXeEFJfAzpgiDOVDoFKXy_uSmg)

In every generation better-adapted individuals will bee more likely to survive and reproduce. This is only a tendency, however, not a deterministic rule. A snail living in an English hedgerow is less likely to be eaten of its shell is striped rather than plain.But it is not very likely to survive in any case; it may be eaten by a shrew, or die of heatstroke or starvation; it may even be eaten by a bird after all. Selection is a process of sampling. The variation of characters among individuals ensures that the sample that reproduces is a biased sample of the population as a whole, but its composition cannot be precisely specified in advance. But there is nobody responsible for selecting snail at the bottom of hedgerow, and no individuals, no matter how well-endowed has any guarantee of success, only a greater or lesser chance. Richard Lewontin once prefaced a lecture on this topic with a quote from Ecclesiastes: the race is not alway to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but time and chance happen to both.

The nature of evolution as sampling implies that evolution is a stochastic process that is subject to sampling error. The composition of a population at any point in time will be determined by three factors. One is historical, the composition of the generation from which it descends. The second is selection, which tends to increase some kinds of individual and decrease others. The third is chance. The actual composition of the population will inevitably differ from what we expected based on descent and selection, because the life of each individual is a historically unique succession of events who eventual outcome is influenced by a multitude of factors. The next generation is formed in a stochastic, or probabilistic, fashion from the success and failure of many such lives. We may be able to predict its average properties with some assurance, but its composition will fluctuate to a greater or lesser extent in ways we cannot predict or account for.

fishkr

26th November 2007, 11:02 PM

Why should we do all the work? Give us your interpretation in 27,000 polysylabic words or less, then we'll see.

Haiku Without a Fish :

A snake swims upstream

finless, footless, clueless

mijopaalmc

27th November 2007, 01:10 PM

Why should we do all the work? Give us your interpretation in 27,000 polysylabic words or less, then we'll see.

And let's see, I already gave you the distilled argument in my first response to you:

You seem to have missed the crux of the argument where an organisms phenotype does not fully determine whether it produces offspring.

As far as I understand the mathematical modeling of evolution, the environment is an extremely complex function that maps the initial conditions (i.e., the organism's phenotype) to final results (i.e., the production of reproductively viable offspring). If, as I maintain, two identical sets of initial conditions can yield two different final results, the process is random. The problem with the continuing discussion is that people keep ignoring the fact that I have defined "random" in this way (which happens to be equivalent to "described by probability"). My argument could be very easily defeated if someone were to present evidence that individuals of certain phenotypes in a given population always produce reproductively viable offspring while individuals of all the other phenotypes in that same population never produce reproductively viable offspring.

Could you actually respond to this in more than nineteen syllables?

Skeptic Ginger

28th November 2007, 11:09 PM

fishkr and articulett-

How would you respond to evolutionary biologist Graham Bell?

The composition of a population at any point in time will be determined by three factors. One is historical, the composition of the generation from which it descends. The second is selection, which tends to increase some kinds of individual and decrease others. The third is chance. The actual composition of the population will inevitably differ from what we expected based on descent and selectionIf this is it in a nut shell, what is everyone arguing about?

mijopaalmc

28th November 2007, 11:15 PM

If this is it in a nut shell, what is everyone arguing about?

The point is that the phenotype of the individual doesn't completely determine the number of offspring it produces, which is exactly what Bell goes on to explain:

But it is not very likely to survive in any case; it may be eaten by a shrew, or die of heatstroke or starvation; it may even be eaten by a bird after all.

Henners

29th November 2007, 08:12 AM

The point is that the phenotype of the individual doesn't completely determine the number of offspring it produces, which is exactly what Bell goes on to explain:
However, your contention: "If, as I maintain, two identical sets of initial conditions can yield two different final results, the process is random," is a different issue entirely, and you have not established that it can.

In chaotic systems, two immeasurably different systems can evolve differently through entirely deterministic (i.e., non-random) processes.

mijopaalmc

29th November 2007, 10:26 AM

In chaotic systems, two immeasurably different systems can evolve differently through entirely deterministic (i.e., non-random) processes.

Except that with chaotic system, you actually start with different sets of initial conditions. If you were able to measure each initial condition with infinite accuracy and execute your calculations with infinite accuracy, you would end up with the same final conditions if you started with identical initial conditions.

articulett

29th November 2007, 06:58 PM

If this is it in a nut shell, what is everyone arguing about?

Mijo thinks that it makes sense to call evolution random because you cannot tell beforehand which individuals will survive and which will perish... And after concluding that "selections is random" per that convoluted semantic twisting AND using the biologist general definition of mutations being random... he adds one random (the one he applied to selection) to the randomness of mutation and determines that evolution is random (times 2 :) ). Or stochastic-- which he uses as a synonym for "random" because "stochastic processes" are sometimes called "random processes"-- but it's not because they are "random" per se, it's because they contain random variables. But to mijo it's all RANDOM.

Nobody but creationists (and Mijo-- who swears he's not a creationist) thinks that it makes sense or is explanatory to call evolution random. But Mijo inserts this determination of his at every point... oddly enough, so does Behe... as seen in the multiple reviews of his book. In fact, Mijo derailed this thread to tell us all that evolution really is random per whatever vague and semantically twisted definition he's trying to shove down everyone's throat. This after hundreds of posts on a thread of his own making where he asked, but apparently didn't understand why evolutionists describe natural selection as nonrandom. Instead, he has determined that they are wrong... and he's smarter, better, and more explanatory-- though no-one but himself recognizes his expertise on the topic. And though he insists that all these other scientists are saying what he is saying-- they clearly aren't-- moreover... he totally ignores those current scientists and the tops in the field who most decidedly say-- Natural Selection is nonrandom.

No one's arguing. It's just that Mijo has to have the last word and the word is "Evolution is random". I think everyone else has realized that will always be his point and has given up trying to tell him why no biologist would ever describe it that way.

But Fishkr's beautiful Haiku coupled with having Mijo on ignore makes the whole experience worth it for me.

:)

Wowbagger

29th November 2007, 07:21 PM

Dang. I thought this discussion ended long ago.

You know, it really depends on the definition of random you use. There are valid definitions and invalid ones, when describing evolution.

An example of each:

Valid: Mutations are random as to whether they will be detrimental or beneficial, etc.

Invalid: Evolution is all just random chance.

I reiterate that using the word "random" is not strictly necessary when defining evolution. That's why I try to urge folks not to do so. I'm just trying to prevent further confusion, down the road.

But, I'm not going to argue against those who still use it, to some valid extent.

Mijo seems about half and half. He cites valid papers from folks who call it that. I just hope he sees that the "randomness" only models reality, and that reality is not really random, in itself.

Is this so hard to understand?!

articulett

29th November 2007, 07:51 PM

Why should we do all the work? Give us your interpretation in 27,000 polysylabic words or less, then we'll see.

Haiku Without a Fish :

A snake swims upstream

finless, footless, clueless

I love this... it's my favorite Haiku ever...
even the title rocks.

mijopaalmc

29th November 2007, 07:57 PM

Mijo seems about half and half. He cites valid papers from folks who call it that. I just hope he sees that the "randomness" only models reality, and that reality is not really random, in itself.

Is this so hard to understand?!

It's not that hard to understand what you have said above within the framework you have set up. However, I dispute you fundamental premise that "reality is not really random, in itself". I don't think that that has been thoroughly demonstrated.

Wowbagger

30th November 2007, 07:17 AM

However, I dispute you fundamental premise that "reality is not really random, in itself". I don't think that that has been thoroughly demonstrated. It's hard to demonstrate. Mostly because we don't have the capability to calculate reality to the same degree reality, itself, uses. (Does that make sense?) Again, it is like predicting the weather: We don't have the ability to calculate every aspect of the climate to the same degree the climate, itself, uses.

But, we know a few things:

1. Historically, anyone who claims their model is the last word on something is made a fool of. In science, the models keep getting more and more precise and accurate, with seemingly no limit; indicating reality is predictable to an arbitrary degree. If there was a fundamental randomness in nature (above the quantum level), we would have demonstrated that, already (in a similar way Heisenberg demonstrated it for the quantum level).

2. It is true that a certain amount of uncertainty in atomic and subatomic particles has been demonstrated (Heisenberg, and all that). But, we also know that those probabilistic levels of nature "smear out" and become surprisingly predictable at higher levels.

Example: Nature might select radioactive atoms to decay "at random", but the half-life of a given amount of radioactive material is very predictable.

The only hypothetical "out" I can think of, is that life forms are somehow more able to be manipulated by quantum uncertainty that non-living material. But, this has yet to be demonstrated. In fact, recent studies make this idea less plausible.

Skeptic Ginger

1st December 2007, 11:19 PM

I know this is a lost cause but might I suggest mijo that you quit arguing about the name you assign to the process and just see where it is you all differ on the specifics of the process. It really seems to me to be an absurd semantics argument here rather than much else.

If one of 2 outcomes is possible, is that random? If one of five outcomes, is that random? It all depends on how you look at it. But the number of outcomes or the odds of each outcome, or how they come about doesn't change.

There are selection pressures which influence the genetic survivors working along with random forces. You may not be able to predict the surviving characteristics of the individual but you can predict the surviving characteristics of the group. My child is not going to look like a starfish. He may get a random assortment of genes from me and his father, but some of those genes are going to have a dominant expression. That changes the odds from entirely random to only partially random.

articulett

1st December 2007, 11:25 PM

No, he won't...

Because he's to busy going to other threads telling everyone that evolution really is random.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97866&page=4

Any thread where anybody says evolution isn't random... Mijo must pop in to declare that it is.

Why would he care about your input and clarifications when he has already declared himself an expert on evolution in regards to randomness?

fishkr

2nd December 2007, 10:21 PM

And he doesn't understand Chaos theory. Has it backwards.

fishkr

2nd December 2007, 10:27 PM

I love this... it's my favorite Haiku ever...
even the title rocks.

Undeserved praise, but vanity compells me to enjoy it.;)

Skeptic Ginger

3rd December 2007, 12:21 AM

Mijo, I found this looking for something else. It addresses/argues against your position very directly. It's a lecture in microbiology at a pretty high level, but I think you'll find enough of it understandable to be worth your time.

http://www-dna2006.cea.fr/lectures/Austin1.pdf

quixotecoyote

3rd December 2007, 12:44 AM

I also found an interesting article that explicitly deals with this argument:
Chance and Macroevolution (http://www.jstor.org.proxytest.missouristate.edu/view/00318248/ap010274/01a00040/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi %3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3dstochastic% 2bevolution%26wc%3don&frame=noframe&dpi=3&userID=920771d8@smsu.edu/01c0a834748a571169ef16f49&currentResult=00318248%2bap010274%2b01a00040%2b0%2 c7F7E7E&backcontext=page&backurl=/cgi-bin/jstor/viewitem/00318248/ap010274/01a00040/1%3fsearchUrl%3dhttp%253a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%253fhp%253d25%2526si%253d1%2526gw%253 djtx%2526jtxsi%253d1%2526jcpsi%253d1%2526artsi%253 d1%2526Query%253dstochastic%252bevolution%2526wc%2 53don%26frame%3dnoframe%26dpi%3d3%26userID%3d92077 1d8@smsu.edu/01c0a834748a571169ef16f49%26currentResult%3d003182 48%252bap010274%252b01a00040%252b0%252c7F7E7E%26co nfig%3djstor%26PAGE%3d1&config=jstor&PAGE=0)
Roberta L. Millstein
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, No. 4. (Dec., 2000), pp. 603-624.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248%28200012%2967%3A4%3C603%3ACAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6 Similarly, proponents of stochasitc models do not deny Laplacean determinisn. Rather, both deterministis and stochastic macroevolutionary explanations are consistent with either Laplacean determinisn or indeterminisn. Thus, the stochasticity of the models does not depend on the stochasticity of the underlying phenomena; he underlying phenomena could be ontologically random or Laplacean deterministic.

...

Although elements of this model have been criticized since it was first proposed, and alternative models have been proffered the MBL [Stochastic Model for Macroevolution] continues to be cited in textbooks and recent papers.

...

Consider the canonical example of indiscriminate sampling,
the blindfolded sampling of colored balls from an urn. Suppose the balls
are identical except for the fact that some are red and some are green. One
person, fully blindfolded, picks balls out of the urn, while another person
watches. ... [he] would acknowledge that the picking of the balls involved "chance as indiscriminate
sampling," where the sampling occurs with respect to a given
property, although it does not involve "chance as ignorance."

...

3.2. Eble's Chances in Stochastic Macroevolutionary Models. As we saw
above, stochastic models are characterized by explanations that are untimebounded
and untaxonbounded. These characteristics imply that differences
between taxa are causally irrelevant to differences in rates of branching
and extinction within the taxa (this is the untaxonbounded element)
and that different time periods are causally irrelevant to differences in rates
of branching and extinction (this is the untimebounded element). In other
words, stochastic models involve "chance as indiscriminate samplingusampling
that is indiscriminate with respect to differences in time intervals
and taxa.

mijopaalmc

3rd December 2007, 07:59 PM

And he doesn't understand Chaos theory. Has it backwards.

Really?

Please explain.

fishkr

3rd December 2007, 08:49 PM

Except that with chaotic system, you actually start with different sets of initial conditions. If you were able to measure each initial condition with infinite accuracy and execute your calculations with infinite accuracy, you would end up with the same final conditions if you started with identical initial conditions.

Completely untrue. Two identical sytems of the right nature ("chaotic" in the non-linear sense, which is not the same thing as RANDOM!!!!), with completely identical initial conditions can easily generate different outcomes. In these cases no matter how many measurements of any level of precision you could take, and regardless of your ability to crunch numbers for predictive outcomes, you will fail. Newton's billiard ball world is just not the case.

Many dynamical systems - the weather is the classic example - cannot be predicted, not because of lack of data, but because they are in a class of systems which generate non-recurring (in essence, creative) behavior.

This is very basic stuff, Mijo. Lots of people take the "butterfly effect" cliche the wrong way, but many of these people are politicians or Hollywood screenwriters, so they have an excuse.

Walter Wayne

3rd December 2007, 09:06 PM

Completely untrue. Two identical sytems of the right nature ("chaotic" in the non-linear sense, which is not the same thing as RANDOM!!!!), with completely identical initial conditions can easily generate different outcomes. In these cases no matter how many measurements of any level of precision you could take, and regardless of your ability to crunch numbers for predictive outcomes, you will fail. Newton's billiard ball world is just not the case.

Many dynamical systems - the weather is the classic example - cannot be predicted, not because of lack of data, but because they are in a class of systems which generate non-recurring (in essence, creative) behavior.

This is very basic stuff, Mijo. Lots of people take the "butterfly effect" cliche the wrong way, but many of these people are politicians or Hollywood screenwriters, so they have an excuse.You have it wrong. Chaotic systems are those which are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions, but still predictable if you have enough precise data.

If otherwise, I would like to see a site to your definition.

Walt

mijopaalmc

3rd December 2007, 09:11 PM

Completely untrue. Two identical sytems of the right nature ("chaotic" in the non-linear sense, which is not the same thing as RANDOM!!!!), with completely identical initial conditions can easily generate different outcomes. In these cases no matter how many measurements of any level of precision you could take, and regardless of your ability to crunch numbers for predictive outcomes, you will fail. Newton's billiard ball world is just not the case.

Many dynamical systems - the weather is the classic example - cannot be predicted, not because of lack of data, but because they are in a class of systems which generate non-recurring (in essence, creative) behavior.

This is very basic stuff, Mijo. Lots of people take the "butterfly effect" cliche the wrong way, but many of these people are politicians or Hollywood screenwriters, so they have an excuse.

You might actually read something about dynamical systems before you make a statement like that:

In particular, a chaotic dynamical system is generally characterized by

Chaos (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chaos.html)

1. Having a dense collection of points with periodic orbits,

2. Being sensitive to the initial condition of the system (so that initially nearby points can evolve quickly into very different states), a property sometimes known as the butterfly effect, and

3. Being topologically transitive.

Raptor Witness

3rd December 2007, 09:14 PM

The argument for intelligent design is simpler than what I'm reading here. It goes something like this:

If we were to send out probes to other galaxies, assuming that we had that capability, we would no doubt want to know if we were alone in the universe. How would we go about determining if other intelligent life had evolved beyond the earth? Listening for radio signals hasn't helped us so far, so we would need another method, especially for determining if civilizations had previously colonized another planet's surface. What would our probe look for, to determine if intelligent life had evolved somewhere else? How about roads, bridges, buildings, or the simple organization of matter on a planet's surface? That would be easy.

The criteria we would use to determine intelligent life elsewhere in the universe can be applied to the universe as a whole. Einstein said, that "God does not play dice with the universe." So if the organization of matter is an acceptable fingerprint for higher intelligence, then organization generally should also be evidence of a designer. Our roads, bridges and buildings, are nothing compared to the design of living systems.

To say that there is no intelligence behind our design, is to contradict one's own argument entirely. It's the most foolish statement of self condemnation that I can imagine.

articulett

3rd December 2007, 11:10 PM

To say that there is no intelligence behind our design, is to contradict one's own argument entirely. It's the most foolish statement of self condemnation that I can imagine.

Said like a thoroughly religiously indoctrinated person who has no understanding of natural selection whatsoever.

If it was designed, it was done so with great waste and suffering and many cobbled together pieces indistinguishable from blind natural selection over time. We have a non functional vitamin C gene in our DNA that we share with our primate kin. It works in other mammals, but somewhere along the ways, ours got mutated. But we eat fruit, as do our ape kin, so there was enough vitamin C in our ancestor's diets that we managed to exist anyhow... but we carry the mutated non working gene. What sort of intelligence would design that? What sort of intelligence would make a guy produce 2000 billion sperm in a life time when only 2 on average make anyone? And the testosterone needed to keep up that activity shortens the life of the bearer of that sperm production factory. That's major wastage. And the suffering inflicted by the ruthlessness of much of the design components is also unfathomable for any intelligence.

Read more. Preach less. You are way out of your league here. What you are proposing is called the argument from incredulity. If you want to be taken seriously you may wish to brush up on basic logic. Just because you can't fathom it happening any other way than by supernatural means... doesn't mean that scientists can't and don't understand a much more plausible means. Even buildings and bridges are built upon years of iterative design trial error and honing. But you have to have a bit of scientific understanding to understand this and you can't be afraid that your immortal soul is in danger if you find out.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

4th December 2007, 05:30 AM

Many dynamical systems - the weather is the classic example - cannot be predicted, not because of lack of data, but because they are in a class of systems which generate non-recurring (in essence, creative) behavior.
Holy cow, this is fascinating. I wonder how many people think that chaotic systems are nondeterministic?

~~ Paul

Wowbagger

4th December 2007, 06:11 AM

You might actually read something about dynamical systems before you make a statement like that: Someone correct me, if I am wrong, but I suspect mijo has learned something recently, from the stuff we were saying, and now he is laying down the facts on someone else?

If so, then excellent!

(If not, forgive my delusions.)

jimbob

4th December 2007, 10:06 AM

Holy cow, this is fascinating. I wonder how many people think that chaotic systems are nondeterministic?

~~ Paul

Chaotic systems are a plausible mechanism to amplify quantum effects, so although deterministic over the short term, they could be random over the longer-term; if random quantum events alter conditions sufficiently to perturb the system.

The maths is deterministic, but some of the conditions would be random.

If one states that deterministic systems always have identical responses for identical starting conditions, then this would not be deterministic.

ETA:

That would mean that it would be impossible in principle to predict the weather on an precise day far enough in the future, but not impossible to predict the climate at that time.

If I understand mijo's points this is analogous to his use of the word "random". I prefer "probabilistic" (a poisson distribution)* where different traits alter the lambda. Or "load the dice" differently.

I like the image of selection as being a game of chance, but where all players have their dice loaded differently.

This is not remotely like any definition of "random" used by IDers, and I don't like the word because of its everyday usage.

*One of the predicitons that one can make is that, if a population is stable, then the average number of breeding offfspring per parent must be one. If you know that the population is stable, and know the brood-size, one can begin using simple statistics to see how relative selective advantages/disadvantages would play out.

Articulett's statement:
those current scientists and the tops in the field who most decidedly say-- Natural Selection is nonrandom.
Is only true of these scientists when they are countering a particular cretinist parody of evolution which is that mutation is random and ignoring natural selection. When actually discussing the maths of "selective advantage" they use a probabilistic treatment. This does not alter the story, except to add the caveat "tends to". Without a probabilistic treatment, how do you quantifiy a selective advantage?

fishkr

4th December 2007, 10:25 AM

You might actually read something about dynamical systems before you make a statement like that:

In particular, a chaotic dynamical system is generally characterized by

Chaos (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chaos.html)

You have an uncanny ability to miss the forest for the trees, extracting a few elements from Chaos Theory and coming to a half baked conclusion.

See Strange Attractor. The E. Lorenz weather model is perfect, one of the earliest examples of these types of non-linear systems which were identified. It's been many years since I referenced this work, but as I recall the "owl mask" which people are familiar with in association with Chaos may be the plotted output of the Lorenz Attractor. Maybe not.

The point is that your quote is incomplete. Chaotic systems (by "Chaotic" I mean systems that are categorized by periodic non-deterministic behavior, hence "stange attractors") are capable of behavior which repeats itself within limits, but never quite exactly. The "owl mask' is a graphic plot of a system which repeats it'self closely, but never the same. You can run this program forever and the mask will fill in till it's almost solid, but if you look with enough resolution you will see the lines don't match.

Many physical systems which may seem random are not. The real essence of Chaos Theory is that within certain seemingly random systems structure does exist. Which means they are not really random at all.

Thus the "butterfly effect" is often misconstrued to mean tiny fluttering wings will effect the weather across the world, or "everthing effects everything else". It CAN mean this, but NOT NECCESSARILY. In fact it can mean the complete opposite.

Strange attractors like our weather, or the national economy, or animal populations, can be remarkably robust, and tend to require huge perterbations to effect large scale change. (Things like gigantic increases in CO2)

Or they can be very vulnerable to small inputs. Criticality is often hard to predict.

Some significant aspects of Chaos theory:

1. Beneath and within seemingly random phenomenon can exist remarkably fine order.

2. Relatively simple sytems can generate highly out-sized complexity

3. Dynamical systems can settle into stable behaviors even when they are highly perturbed

4. In other cases seemingly stable, complex systems can be effected by small inputs.

We seem to be derrailing into another thread, passing from one "basin of attraction" into another, as it were.

fishkr

4th December 2007, 10:32 AM

Holy cow, this is fascinating. I wonder how many people think that chaotic systems are nondeterministic?

~~ Paul

Those that are informed about such things.:)

Walter Wayne

4th December 2007, 11:39 AM

fishkr, mijo did miss anything.

He stated that chaotic systems produce the same output for identical input conditions. You stated "Two identical sytems of the right nature ("chaotic" in the non-linear sense, which is not the same thing as RANDOM!!!!), with completely identical initial conditions can easily generate different outcomes" which is wrong. A chaotic system will only produce different outputs for two completely identical sets of initial conditions if there is a random element in it.

He seems to understand chaos theory better than you do.

Many physical systems which may seem random are not. The real essence of Chaos Theory is that within certain seemingly random systems structure does exist. Which means they are not really random at all.
Bad logic.

Just because a deterministic process can create seemingly random phenomenon, does not mean that seemingly random phenomenon have an underlying deterministic process.

Jimbob's post points out one of the interestic ramifications of chaos theory, though it should be emphasized that chaotic systems is only one way that seemingly insignificant random variation can be "amplified" to the large scale. A system which "unstable" about certain points but not specifically chaotic can amplify random behaviour

Walt

Walter Wayne

4th December 2007, 02:06 PM

fishkr, mijo did miss anything.
Damn, time limit on editing. I of course meant "...did not miss...".

Now if I'm lucky, no one will notice the interesting spelling of interesting.

Walt

fishkr

4th December 2007, 02:36 PM

fishkr, mijo did miss anything.

He stated that chaotic systems produce the same output for identical input conditions. You stated "Two identical sytems of the right nature ("chaotic" in the non-linear sense, which is not the same thing as RANDOM!!!!), with completely identical initial conditions can easily generate different outcomes" which is wrong.

We are getting lost in terms. Staying with the Lorenz attractor - if you run this simulation with the same starting values any number of times the output will be slightly different each time. It is non-repeating. This is the point I was trying to make.

A chaotic system will only produce different outputs for two completely identical sets of initial conditions if there is a random element in it.

Walt

I'm not clear what you mean by "random element in it".

I wish now I hadn't used the term "non-deterministic", because I can see that it is too ambiguous. The Lorenz attractor can be considered deterministic in the sense that the output is constrained and falls within limits, but at the same time the output is non-repeating, which implies . . . well this is exactly why non-linear systems are so interesting. This implies non-determinism. If the input doesn't predict the output, isn't that the case?

fishkr

4th December 2007, 02:38 PM

Sorry, I included part of my response within your quotation.

CapelDodger

4th December 2007, 02:40 PM

fishkr, mijo did miss anything.

He stated that chaotic systems produce the same output for identical input conditions. You stated "Two identical sytems of the right nature ("chaotic" in the non-linear sense, which is not the same thing as RANDOM!!!!), with completely identical initial conditions can easily generate different outcomes" which is wrong. A chaotic system will only produce different outputs for two completely identical sets of initial conditions if there is a random element in it.

That's fine using "identical input conditions" as an ideal; the problem arises as to whether two sets of input conditions can be identical. It's a feature of chaotic systems that they constantly amplify any initial variations in starting conditions, which means "identical" must be to infinite precision in your ideal case. Given Heisenberg I don't see that that's possible in practice, and perhaps not even in principle.

fishkr

4th December 2007, 02:45 PM

Just because a deterministic process can create seemingly random phenomenon, does not mean that seemingly random phenomenon have an underlying deterministic process.

Walt

I agree (I think) but a deterministic process like a strange attractor isn't generating random phenomenon at all - it is generating structured behavior, or information, or whater you want to call it. But if the output can be infinitely variable and non-random, what is it?

CapelDodger

4th December 2007, 02:58 PM

The argument for intelligent design is simpler than what I'm reading here. It goes something like this:

If we were to send out probes to other galaxies, assuming that we had that capability, we would no doubt want to know if we were alone in the universe.

What we first want to know is if there's any life out there. Bacteria will do.

How would we go about determining if other intelligent life had evolved beyond the earth?

Why do you focus in on intelligence? ID is supposed to apply to all life, is it not? Why, then, argue a very specific case instead of the generality?

Listening for radio signals hasn't helped us so far, so we would need another method, especially for determining if civilizations had previously colonized another planet's surface. What would our probe look for, to determine if intelligent life had evolved somewhere else? How about roads, bridges, buildings, or the simple organization of matter on a planet's surface? That would be easy.

The criteria we would use to determine intelligent life elsewhere in the universe can be applied to the universe as a whole.

The "simple organization of matter on a planet's surface" is otherwise known as landscape, which would not be regarded as evidence of intelligent life, just of geological processes. The more complicated organisation known as life would similarly not be regarded as evidence of intelligent life - it was present on Earth long before there was any intelligence, after all.

Einstein said, that "God does not play dice with the universe."

And almost immediately regretted it. It's a reference to quantum physics anyway, and entirely irrelevant here.

So if the organization of matter is an acceptable fingerprint for higher intelligence, then organization generally should also be evidence of a designer. Our roads, bridges and buildings, are nothing compared to the design of living systems.

Which were here long before we were a twinkle in evolution's eye (so to speak).

To say that there is no intelligence behind our design, is to contradict one's own argument entirely. It's the most foolish statement of self condemnation that I can imagine.

You've presented a very foolish argument. I can't help thinking Einstein would have agreed with me on that.

CapelDodger

4th December 2007, 03:12 PM

If you want to be taken seriously you may wish to brush up on basic logic.

I fear the condition is far worse than that. Raptor Witness's argument is so bad it's not even wrong. Even as an argument it doesn't pass muster. I've seen (and heard) some stuff in my time, but that sad effort stands out.

I wonder who originated it? Or did it perhaps emerge from a warm soup of creationist memes? Whatever; there's certainly no hint of intelligent design in it.

VonNeumann

4th December 2007, 03:35 PM

Said like a thoroughly religiously indoctrinated person who has no understanding of natural selection whatsoever.

If it was designed, it was done so with great waste and suffering and many cobbled together pieces indistinguishable from blind natural selection over time. We have a non functional vitamin C gene in our DNA that we share with our primate kin. It works in other mammals, but somewhere along the ways, ours got mutated. But we eat fruit, as do our ape kin, so there was enough vitamin C in our ancestor's diets that we managed to exist anyhow... but we carry the mutated non working gene. What sort of intelligence would design that? What sort of intelligence would make a guy produce 2000 billion sperm in a life time when only 2 on average make anyone? And the testosterone needed to keep up that activity shortens the life of the bearer of that sperm production factory. That's major wastage. And the suffering inflicted by the ruthlessness of much of the design components is also unfathomable for any intelligence.

Read more. Preach less. You are way out of your league here. What you are proposing is called the argument from incredulity. If you want to be taken seriously you may wish to brush up on basic logic. Just because you can't fathom it happening any other way than by supernatural means... doesn't mean that scientists can't and don't understand a much more plausible means. Even buildings and bridges are built upon years of iterative design trial error and honing. But you have to have a bit of scientific understanding to understand this and you can't be afraid that your immortal soul is in danger if you find out.

There's been a lot of hype about nanotechnology and it is a science that has a long way to go -- but we can play with the ideas as if we were further along: I can imagine a nanotechnologist looking to biology for some examples on how to do some extraordinary things -- maybe some design ideas to emulate. Or what if some brilliant nanotechnologists somewhere had successfully invented some great technology. ..and some others try to understand it so they can copy it. And they can't! It's too complex for them. And yet, would they deprecate it with comments about how flawed is the design by the brilliant nanotechnologists? Designs that they can't even copy? Designs that are too sophisticated for them to understand?

I think it is proud of you Art' to think you could have designed biological systems better than **** designed it (plug in "designer" or "darwinistic mechanistic process" or "god" for ****). You would have to believe you can, since you apparently believe you know enough to criticize the design of biological systems.

You believe a mechanistic process, an exceedingly simple non-teleological process, is sufficient to design biological systems. And yet it is a stupid process that you claim to know could have been done better somehow. That's your proof it wasn't designed intelligently?

articulett

4th December 2007, 04:13 PM

No Von...
I'm not going to play the "intelligent design" game with you and the assorted undercover and blatant "intelligent design" proponents on this thread. That isn't my "proof". Occam just makes unnecessary and vastly improbable since all consciousness we know of requires a living brain hooked up to sensory inputs to program it. All things attributed to magical forces and entities in the past have been slowly and steadily being explained by science. So far, nothing supernatural is required to explain anything-- no invisible intelligence... once you get a real strong understanding of natural selection it becomes obvious... that's why intelligent design proponents go out of their way to NOT understand it... and to make sure others don't either. It's fairly easy... but not if you are infected with the "scientists think this all happened randomly" meme.

CapelDodger

4th December 2007, 06:09 PM

You believe a mechanistic process, an exceedingly simple non-teleological process, is sufficient to design biological systems. And yet it is a stupid process that you claim to know could have been done better somehow. That's your proof it wasn't designed intelligently?

It's a prefectly reasonable argument. Evolution is a stupid process, which eventually gave rise to the level of intelligence we have. A level at which we design and build things, some of them pretty damn' cute. Of course we're in a position to criticise the results of the stupid process. Nobody intelligent would have designed things that way.

We're just starting into re-designing life on a more rational basis. It'll take time, though; given the choice, we wouldn't have started from here. It's a mess, frankly.

fishkr

4th December 2007, 08:45 PM

There's been a lot of hype about nanotechnology and it is a science that has a long way to go -- but we can play with the ideas as if we were further along: I can imagine a nanotechnologist looking to biology for some examples on how to do some extraordinary things -- maybe some design ideas to emulate. Or what if some brilliant nanotechnologists somewhere had successfully invented some great technology. ..and some others try to understand it so they can copy it. And they can't! It's too complex for them. And yet, would they deprecate it with comments about how flawed is the design by the brilliant nanotechnologists? Designs that they can't even copy? Designs that are too sophisticated for them to understand?

I think it is proud of you Art' to think you could have designed biological systems better than **** designed it (plug in "designer" or "darwinistic mechanistic process" or "god" for ****). You would have to believe you can, since you apparently believe you know enough to criticize the design of biological systems.

You believe a mechanistic process, an exceedingly simple non-teleological process, is sufficient to design biological systems. And yet it is a stupid process that you claim to know could have been done better somehow. That's your proof it wasn't designed intelligently?

Quiz:

Read "Consilience" by E.O. Wilson and come back and tell us why nanotech is, in fact linked to evolution. It is, but not in the way you imagine.

Henners

5th December 2007, 06:09 AM

Give me an example of a non-quintessential randomness.

The instructions for my dishwasher tell me to place the cutlery into the little holes in the cutlery thingy "randomly".

If I were a statistician, that would take me ages.

As it is, "non-quintessential randomness" allows me to just stick the cutlery where ever I fancy, thus saving many hours of effort with random-number-tables.

cyborg

5th December 2007, 06:37 AM

Would you expect to see strong correlations after an infinite amount of dishwasher loads?

Henners

5th December 2007, 07:11 AM

Would you expect to see strong correlations after an infinite amount of dishwasher loads?

Indeed.

After AND Before.

A strong correlation just waltzed down my driveway. It was the postman with his bike. They are a 100% correlation. (In my experience.)

cyborg

5th December 2007, 07:22 AM

You do not appear to be communicating in English.

fishkr

5th December 2007, 09:31 PM

Chaotic systems are a plausible mechanism to amplify quantum effects, so although deterministic over the short term, they could be random over the longer-term; if random quantum events alter conditions sufficiently to perturb the system.

The maths is deterministic, but some of the conditions would be random.

If one states that deterministic systems always have identical responses for identical starting conditions, then this would not be deterministic.

ETA:

That would mean that it would be impossible in principle to predict the weather on an precise day far enough in the future, but not impossible to predict the climate at that time.

It's been 20 years since I read Lorenz's '63 paper on weather forecasting.:) but I took another look today. I realize now that the subject of intitial conditions, etc. in Lorenz is not just a throwaway, but the idea of constrained, "deterministic", infinite variability is indelible.

I'm opening another thread on the Chaos topic to get it out of this ID context.

jimbob

6th December 2007, 02:15 PM

There are features that evolutionary theory can predict wouldn't happen, just as there are features which one wouldn't expect of a benign and competent designer. Let alone an omnscient and benign designer.

Evolutionary theory would predict that if there is sufficient selective advantage, certain traits would evolve independently on several occasions.

If a trait evolves in one organism its descendents may or may not have this trait, but you would not expect to see this trait being suddenly "reused" in its entirety in another, unrelated organism, as opposed to evolving independently inboth cases.

Something that evolutionary theory would predict to not occur:

Luckily we now have some examples of intelligent design:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/144944724ee8d6b96f.jpg

The important point here is that this mouse has the same 700-letter sequence as the jellyfish Green Fluorescent Protein, including those parts of the sequence which are unimportant.

That wouldn't have happened by chance, so it is safe to conclude that this was an intelligent designer reusing the jellyfish GFP gene-sequence.

Lateral transimssion of genes has been observed, but the sudden appearence of a fluorescent mouse, and genes from a jellyfish without many other interveaning organisms would militate against this being natural.

An omniscient and benign designer would get things right first time, if such a designer was also competent.

So lets remove omniscience, as even Behe agrees that there has been incremental improvement...

If a competant designer manages to design something, then this designer does not waste effort redesigning the same feature from scratch every time, but reuses as much of the design as possible.

There are many examples of organisms that have independentently evolved extra sets of eyes, but didn't "reuse" their original "design" of eye. The mammal retina is poorly designed compared to the squid's. A competent designer would not waste all that effort to redisgn something and then get parts of it wrong.

So lets remove competent and benign.

That leaves us with an incompetent and/or malign designer, or none at all...

Henners

12th December 2007, 02:25 AM

You do not appear to be communicating in English.

Damned cheek!

You will find that my English is perfect. If there is a problem with your English comprehension, that would be a different category of problem entirely.

CapelDodger

12th December 2007, 02:32 PM

You do not appear to be communicating in English.

Henners is just messin' wit' ya.

CapelDodger

12th December 2007, 02:38 PM

Damned cheek!

Oh for Pete's sake ... Damnable, not damned :rolleyes:! Abbreviated to damn' before a consonant.

A once splendid language has gone to the dogs ...

Beerina

13th December 2007, 09:13 AM

Oh for Pete's sake ... Damnable, not damned :rolleyes:! Abbreviated to damn' before a consonant.

A once splendid language has gone to the dogs ...

With all due respect, how do you know his cheek hasn't already been damned? "Damnable" means "Item X is damn-able" , i.e. is something that it is possible could become damned at some point (as if things exist which a god could not damn if it so chose.)

"That damned cheek" is some cheek that's so evil, it's already existing in a state of damnation. I'll leave to the pedants to say whether that means it's Hellbound, or already in Hell.

CapelDodger

13th December 2007, 02:31 PM

With all due respect, how do you know his cheek hasn't already been damned? "Damnable" means "Item X is damn-able" , i.e. is something that it is possible could become damned at some point (as if things exist which a god could not damn if it so chose.)

"Damnable" (in this context) means worthy of being damned, which is stronger, I think, than simply damning it.

It's not only gods that can damn. One can, for instance, "damn with faint praise", or damn someone's eyes.

(Damn, I love this language ...)

Oliver

13th December 2007, 02:46 PM

I've just finished listening to Point of Inquiry's intelligent design interview with Michael Behe, one of the founding father's of that ironically named movement. As usual, the phrase "Intelligent design makes no predictions" cropped up, together with the idea that god must be the designer.

Does everyone go along with these positions??

This is what bugs me. Firstly, the hypothesis that some or all aspect of our biology were designed by some intelligent agent is not, on the face of it, unreasonable. And subject to reasonable assumptions, this hypothesis certainly does make some predictions. Well designed artifacts are designed for a specific purpose: so we should expect to be able to divine purpose from design. Designs are usually 'cleaned up', so for example while an engineering drawing might need a whole lot of construction lines to aid in drawing it, those construction lines are removed in the final blueprint. If designs do evolve, designers usually re-factor, so for example if a programmer extends a piece of software and finds the original architecture was inadequate, he will (if he is a good programmer) re-design and strip out any old code that is no longer needed. Designs often require configuration management and attribution, so you might expect to find something like version numbers or signatures or copyright notices on them. Designs often evolve in quantum leaps, in which some change or improvement is accompanied by a radical departure from a previous architecture. Designs are usually modular and attempt to create minimal interfaces between components in order to manage complexity. And so on and so on.

These are all things we might reasonably expect to find in designed artifacts, and are things I would expect to follow from the intelligent design hypothesis. While not strictly speaking 'predictions' in a rigorous sense, identification of any one of these features would be taken as support for the intelligent design hypothesis. The absence of any one of these features can of course be explained away in any variety of ways, usually by special pleading, so absence does not absolutely disprove intelligent design. But absence certainly makes the ID hypothesis less tenable.

With the exception of quantum leaps in architecture for which Behe coined the term "Irreducible complexity", the ID'ers seem to have entirely ignored these other expected features of intelligently designed artifacts. Needless to say, this is because there is a total absence of such features to be found anywhere in biology, and irreducible complexity currently amounts to little more than argument from ignorance or personal incredulity. But why is the ID hypothesis simply being dismissed as 'unscientific'? It's a reasonable hypothesis, it does make predictions of a sort, so why aren't the bastards being called out and made to explain why their designer designs with all the smarts of a drunken coot?

Then the second point: the presumption that the designer must be god. No, this doesn't follow, maybe the Raelians are right and some space-alien did it. We know of at least one (semi) intelligent natural agent in this universe, and the most reasonable assumption is that if there has been intelligent designing going on, then it was done by some other intelligent natural agent; which may, for all we know, have evolved naturally. But again, god gets introduced and makes himself at home every time ID is discussed, whereas god is a complete non-sequitur. Why are the ID'ers allowed to run away over the hill with god every time?

I realise this has turned into a rant; but don't you think that ID'ers should rather be challenged on the absense of evidence for reasonably predictions made by ID, rather than just dismissing ID with the claim that it makes no predictions?

Here's my prediction:

The world outside the US will laugh about America's "Intelligent Design".

...oh wait - they are ALREADY laughing.

Henners

14th December 2007, 06:05 AM

Oh for Pete's sake ... Damnable, not damned :rolleyes:! Abbreviated to damn' before a consonant.

A once splendid language has gone to the dogs ...

Damned as in cursed.

If I had meant something else, I would have said something else.

CapelDodger

14th December 2007, 02:20 PM

Damned as in cursed.

If I had meant something else, I would have said something else.

Fair enough. Personally, when I curse I frickin' curse, but chacun a son gout, as they say in Canada.

Nogbad

14th December 2007, 02:28 PM

It's a prefectly reasonable argument. Evolution is a stupid process, which eventually gave rise to the level of intelligence we have. A level at which we design and build things, some of them pretty damn' cute. Of course we're in a position to criticise the results of the stupid process. Nobody intelligent would have designed things that way.

We're just starting into re-designing life on a more rational basis. It'll take time, though; given the choice, we wouldn't have started from here. It's a mess, frankly.

It seems a fair point to me. Evolution does not require things to be good - merely good enough. We have lots of things that could be improved in our basic design - we are the Edsels of evolution - or the subject of unintelligent design if you prefer :)

CapelDodger

14th December 2007, 02:53 PM

Here's my prediction:

The world outside the US will laugh about America's "Intelligent Design".

...oh wait - they are ALREADY laughing.

I can only speak for my small corner of it, but you're right. In this country Blair had to play down his religiosity to be politically credible (or even socially credible - Islington's a caustic environment).

The British impression of 'Murricans as naive and superficial is deep-seated, and is, of course, only validated by all the god referencing, from Oscar ceremonies to runs at the Presidency. It wasn't always like that, though (in the US, that is; the Brit sense of cultural superiority goes way back). I expect it to fade.

CapelDodger

14th December 2007, 03:03 PM

It seems a fair point to me. Evolution does not require things to be good - merely good enough. We have lots of things that could be improved in our basic design - we are the Edsels of evolution - or the subject of unintelligent design if you prefer :)

This is quite possibly apocryphal, but there's a story that Neil Armstrong was asked "What was going through your mind during the Apollo 11 count-down?" and replied "That there were three million components in that baby, and every one was contracted out to the lowest bidder". It turned out to be good enough :).

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

14th December 2007, 06:31 PM

Here's my prediction:

The world outside the US will laugh about America's "Intelligent Design".

...oh wait - they are ALREADY laughing.
But America will have the last laugh, because we shall export every last bit of our culture to a world thirsty for American culture. Mwahahaha!

~~ Paul

Skeptic Ginger

14th December 2007, 07:15 PM

But America will have the last laugh, because we shall export every last bit of our culture to a world thirsty for American culture. Mwahahaha!

~~ PaulThe Global Mission (http://www.global-mission.org/article.php?id=59) (7th Day Adventist)

The Global Mission (http://www.elca.org/globalmission/policy/faq.html#What) (Lutheran Evangelical)

Global Missions (http://www.chog.org/MinistriesandPrograms/GlobalMissions/tabid/69/Default.aspx) (Church of God Ministeries)

Global Ministries (http://www.chog.org/MinistriesandPrograms/GlobalMissions/tabid/69/Default.aspx) (United Church of Christ)

Global Missions Center (http://www.chog.org/MinistriesandPrograms/GlobalMissions/tabid/69/Default.aspx) (New Orleans Baptist)

(and so on goes the endless list)

And I bet you thought you were just being funny.

fishkr

14th December 2007, 09:41 PM

The Global Mission (http://www.global-mission.org/article.php?id=59) (7th Day Adventist)

The Global Mission (http://www.elca.org/globalmission/policy/faq.html#What) (Lutheran Evangelical)

Global Missions (http://www.chog.org/MinistriesandPrograms/GlobalMissions/tabid/69/Default.aspx) (Church of God Ministeries)

Global Ministries (http://www.chog.org/MinistriesandPrograms/GlobalMissions/tabid/69/Default.aspx) (United Church of Christ)

Global Missions Center (http://www.chog.org/MinistriesandPrograms/GlobalMissions/tabid/69/Default.aspx) (New Orleans Baptist)

(and so on goes the endless list)

This list unfairly represents American culture as overly religious. It is, of course, but a more balanced accounting should include American Idol, Survivor and Cage Fighting.:)

I'm a Yank, by the way, from Idaho, no less, and I "just gotta say one thing": For every successful seller of trash, there is a buyer of trash.

On the other hand, the Pacific Northwest, where I live, brews superb beer, the best of it the equal of the best of Europe IMHO; a little creamery in California right now is making a blue cheese like non other, wrapped in grape leaves and un-pasturized, caved near the sea; Hagerman, Idaho is home to a burgeoning, sustainable, sturgeon caviar production; WA. and OR are producing world class wine, and there are few enough people here for me to hunt and have an elk in the freezer that I shot last fall.

I swear we have good writers here. Jim Harrison may be my favorite. Unlike Hemmingway, (a beloved sometime-local who shot himslf in the Sun Valley lodge) he always seems to find time for food and sex in his fishing stories.

We still make some good music, although mostly we outsource this job to Britain and Japan.

We make ****** cars, but they're getting better. One day before I die, if they keep improving I might even buy one. (but the clock is ticking)

If one were to flush Hollywood into the Pacific what the rest of the world thought of us would be vastly improved.

. . . but for the politics and the politicians. And the religious right. Those things are probably far worse than they seem from afar. This is an Oil Oligarchy now. **** freedom, screw stem cells and art, we just want a cheap tank of petrol and a leader who will lie convincingly and remind us that, just like the Nazis, God is on our side, and make sure that the bill for our current lifestyle is paid for by someone else. Our children no doubt.

In the mean time, the pendulum of progress has swung back to the Continent (E.U.!!!!!) Gay marriage legal in Spain. Did you guys forget to expect the Spainish Inquisition? Nobody expects the . . . . . sorry. Python fan.

On the other, other hand, we got rid of a layer of scum once, a long time back, re-inventing ourlves in the process. Who's to say we won't do it again?

Call me a skeptical optimist.