Split Thread: Is evolution stochastic?

[recursive prophet]

There is an ongoing debate-over 2k replies-on RichardDawkins.net as to whether natural selection is stochastic or deterministic. At some point I may post a poll here on the question, but I'd be interested to know what those who follow this thread think. Also, if this has been covered in detail elsewhere I'd appreciate someone directing me to that thread. Thanks.

Split from: Evolution: the Facts.

Posted By:Gaspode

[Dr Adequate]

Well, that's just semantics, which is why it's possible to debate it for 2000 posts without reaching agreement.

We know what natural selection does, we can understand the theory, make the predictions, and do the math, without answering that question or ever even thinking about it.

It's a quibble about words. If people started drawing different predictions from the two alternatives, then it would be a real issue. But so far as I know, they don't and it isn't.

[articulett]

It's mijopaalmc's old thread (goes by mjpam there)--

I had posted this clip about the God Delusion http://richarddawkins.net/article,21...ichard-Dawkins (fun clip-- Dawkins on Colbert--a must see) where he once again explains that natural selection is the not random. And this was Mijo's reply.

Quote:

The problem with using this quote and the other quotes you have posted is that they only assert that natural selection is non-random while providing very little justification for such an assertion. Those that do provide minimal justification use a different sense of "random" than the sense that is well-accepted by the scietific community. You really need to pay attention to the context of the quotes.

Here are some of the threads you may be looking for, RP:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82155
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109957

You can google his name and get a nice list of all the threads he opens with insincere queries where he proceeds not to listen to anyone who takes the time to actually answer him.

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, him again. Couldn't he think of something else to be wrong about?

[recursive prophet]

Originally Posted by jimbob

There are non-chaotic physical systems where this isn't the case. The key word is "significantly".

I design and develop power transistors; these rely on the law of large numbers to average out quantum uncertainties, which make them work with very large numbers of electrons. Because they are power devices, they have to be large enough to manage high electric fields, so "normal" semiconductor physics (dealing with conduction bands and Fermi-Dirac statistics is valid, in a way that is getting less so for very small devices.)

I would argue that this means that the selection pressures, and thus the "direction" of evolution is subject to change due to random events.

If the direction is subjected to random change, then surely this is "random".

Articulett: Thanks for the links. I had read one of them before way back, but at this point it is so buried in the back pages I gave up finding it again. I don't have time to read them all right now, but as the quote above shows, apparently not everyone here disagrees with 'mijo.'

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Oh, him again. Couldn't he think of something else to be wrong about?

Dr Adequate: On the Dawkins site the vast majority participating in the discussion agree with mijo, only we prefer to use the term stochastic as it is less ambiguous. If you're so certain the probability maths prove selection isn't in fact stochastic, (and I saw your graph) I would urge you and others who believe the same to join in the debate on Dawkins. I assure you it is far more detailed than what I have read here, and mijo is totally supported by 3 of the most knowledgeable users on the Evolution and Natural Selection Forum. They have made mijo's case far better than he did, though I believe he is pretty on target.

Several others on the ENS boards, like myself, started out leaning toward the deterministic side. But at this point most of us are convinced it is in fact stochastic, and that it's not just semantics. I am trying to recruit those who think otherwise as those arguing selection isn't stochastic are literally getting so soundly refuted I'm embarrassed for them. So come on over, and see if you can help Articulett and the 2 others still standing out. I try and keep an open mind on this, but at this stage it's difficult; the case for stochastic selection seems overwhelming from what I've read so far, and I've covered all 2000 replies.

[articulett]

RP is Mijo II. As if people "believe in" evolution being stochastic or determined. Pick one! And Believe! One or the other!

No, RP, most don't agree with Mijo there... just like on this forum, the smart people posted and left...and those who tried to educate were treated very poorly unless their words could be twisted to support Mijo's semantic game. (Though MZbiologist gets a nod from me for sticking with the nutters longer than anyone else.) I am not involved in the silly thread except to mock on occasion.

And everyone who explained "how evolution is not pure random chance" (the thread's title, btw) like Dawkins in that clip is shouted down by a couple of people with the intelligence of Mijo (I leave it to the reader to make their own determination). All who explain that it's a semantics argument are accused of calling it "determined" or accused of using the wrong definition of random. It is the same semantic games he played here. As if you could "win" a semantics argument. --As if determining what adjective to stick on evolution was more important than conveying understanding of what evolution is. (And I think we've all drawn our own conclusions as to Mijo's interest in and understanding of evolution.)

Start your own thread if you are interested in the best adjective to stick on evolution, Recursive Prophet. Most of us here are tired of the silly game... you and Mijo will have to recruit elsewhere. This is an thread about Evolution: The Facts. It's for people interested in how evolution works-- not for people interested in how they can describe it so that it sounds indistinguishable from the creationist straw man.

You can not win a semantic game, silly! Really. Though... as with Mijo... I'm sure this will not penetrate. (It is a good thing you have found each other.)



ETA--BTW-- probably not a good idea to quote jim-bob... he's seen as being maybe a hair more respectable and comprehensible than mijo around here. Either work on sounding more intelligent yourself or hitch your wagon to a smarter bunch. Coherence counts.

[biomorph]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

There is an ongoing debate-over 2k replies-on RichardDawkins.net as to whether natural selection is stochastic or deterministic.

they've got the server space. It's a popular site. So?

Quote:

At some point I may post a poll here on the question,

Opinions don't change the facts.

The point of the poll is?

Quote:

but I'd be interested to know what those who follow this thread think.

Read away

Quote:

Also, if this has been covered in detail elsewhere I'd appreciate someone directing me to that thread. Thanks.

You could say "detail", yeah, you could, we have a little.

And you could say "if" too.....you could.

Ah, you have.

From memory I recall a coupla, well, sorta backwater posts a while back.....cant' think where though, or when......

from my present understanding of the forum, the search thingy works sorta ok, you might find something there.........

[six7s]

Originally Posted by biomorph

the search thingy works sorta ok, you might find something there.........

It depends on what you're looking for

[biomorph]

LOL thanx...

however searching the term "confirmation bias" and the like gives one or two more results....

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Dr Adequate: On the Dawkins site the vast majority participating in the discussion agree with mijo, only we prefer to use the term stochastic as it is less ambiguous. If you're so certain the probability maths prove selection isn't in fact stochastic, (and I saw your graph) I would urge you and others who believe the same to join in the debate on Dawkins. I assure you it is far more detailed than what I have read here, and mijo is totally supported by 3 of the most knowledgeable users on the Evolution and Natural Selection Forum. They have made mijo's case far better than he did, though I believe he is pretty on target.

Several others on the ENS boards, like myself, started out leaning toward the deterministic side. But at this point most of us are convinced it is in fact stochastic, and that it's not just semantics. I am trying to recruit those who think otherwise as those arguing selection isn't stochastic are literally getting so soundly refuted I'm embarrassed for them. So come on over, and see if you can help Articulett and the 2 others still standing out. I try and keep an open mind on this, but at this stage it's difficult; the case for stochastic selection seems overwhelming from what I've read so far, and I've covered all 2000 replies.

As I recall, mijo was pretending that evolution is random, which was stupid. If he is now reduced to saying that natural selection is stochastic, I guess that's slightly less misleading, though he would do better to say that evolution is a naturally occuring instance of a stochastic algorithm, then he wouldn't be wrong at all. But then, as his whole objective seems to be to describe evolution as inaccurately as possible, that would hardly suit him, would it?

I quite understand why the people on the Dawkins website have abandoned him as uneducable. They are right. He's been flogging this obsession for years, and it's not gotten any less dumb.

[recursive prophet]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

As I recall, mijo was pretending that evolution is random, which was stupid. If he is now reduced to saying that natural selection is stochastic, I guess that's slightly less misleading, though he would do better to say that evolution is a naturally occuring instance of a stochastic algorithm, then he wouldn't be wrong at all. But then, as his whole objective seems to be to describe evolution as inaccurately as possible, that would hardly suit him, would it?

I quite understand why the people on the Dawkins website have abandoned him as uneducable. They are right. He's been flogging this obsession for years, and it's not gotten any less dumb.

Well, I guess ad homs are in vogue here also among those who don't believe selection is inherently stochastic. The only informed poster I know of on Dawkins who abandoned the thread-IMO because he was getting his ass kicked and was smart enough to realize it-was lbq, unless Articulett can name even one other. And who are the 'smart people?' Those who agree with your viewpoint? She keeps trying to maintain most agree with her, but if you go to the link Articulett posted above and read back few pages of the replies-especially those by susu.exp-you will find some very detailed arguments supporting the view that selection is stochastic.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

And who are the 'smart people?

Try this as a simple test:

Hands up those who can recognise, compare and contrast the following terms from Dr A's reply above:

• pretending that evolution is random, which was stupid.
• saying that natural selection is stochastic, I guess that's slightly less misleading
• better to say that evolution is a naturally occuring instance of a stochastic algorithm, then he wouldn't be wrong at all

[articulett]

Isn't that funny? I mean the garbled part about "those who don't believe selection is inherently stochastic"? In his brain there is a way evolution MUST be described, and it has nothing to do with conveying understanding of the process. It's like trying to have a conversation with someone who is too busy having a conversation with the voices in their head. It's reminiscent of this:

N(nutter): Evolution is a noun
S(smart person): Well, yes, but it's a process-- calling it a noun doesn't really describe it.
N: A process is a noun.
S: Yes... but most people describe evolution as a 2 part process-- mutation and
N: Mutation is a noun
S: Yes. And then there is the 2nd part-- the part that selects (a verb) from the mutations
N: Selection is a noun...you're saying it's a verb! (little voice in head chalks up a "win" point)

Anyhow, that's what I mean by him being Mijo II--sorry he derailed this. I'm not going to stretch out his stay any longer by addressing his straw men. I'm sure everyone has as much information as they need to draw their own conclusions.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

As I recall, mijo was pretending that evolution is random, which was stupid. If he is now reduced to saying that natural selection is stochastic, I guess that's slightly less misleading, though he would do better to say that evolution is a naturally occuring instance of a stochastic algorithm, then he wouldn't be wrong at all. But then, as his whole objective seems to be to describe evolution as inaccurately as possible, that would hardly suit him, would it?

I quite understand why the people on the Dawkins website have abandoned him as uneducable. They are right. He's been flogging this obsession for years, and it's not gotten any less dumb.

The focus of the debate has shifted, because very few people on the RDF actually disagree that evolution is a stochastic process. In fact, articulett is the only one claiming that evolution (the compound process of mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, etc.) is not a stochastic process. Rather, the predominate argument of the the thread is whether natural selection is a stochastic process. Given that the founders of the Modern Synthesis formulated a hypothesis that natural selection is a stochastic process and that that hypothesis has not been falsified over the past 50 years, it speaks volumes about your knowledge of evolutionary biology that you think I am "ineducable".

[articulett]

Originally Posted by six7s

Try this as a simple test:

Hands up those who can recognise, compare and contrast the following terms from Dr A's reply above:

• pretending that evolution is random, which was stupid.
• saying that natural selection is stochastic, I guess that's slightly less misleading
• better to say that evolution is a naturally occuring instance of a stochastic algorithm, then he wouldn't be wrong at all

I'm guessing everyone who reads it... except for the "not so smart people".

Let's contrast the level of clarity in RP's or Mijo's posts. How is it that Dr A manages to say so much with so few words, while you can't find a single useful point in pages and pages of Mijo or RP's posts? Or rather, I can't. Maybe someone can. (But I'm skeptical.)

Mijo cannot understand the last sentence because he needs to be able to boil evolution down to the creationist straw man-- the idea that evolution is a theory of random chance. He's much more interested in the semantics than conveying understanding of the process which he seems utterly clueless and absolutely incurious about.

[articulett]

Don't derail this thread Mijo... and I will use my words to characterize my own argument.

You haven't got a clue. Go play on the thread you derailed over there. Don't embarrass yourself here.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

The focus of the debate has shifted, because very few people on the RDF actually disagree that evolution is a stochastic process. In fact, articulett is the only one claiming that evolution (the compound process of mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, etc.) is not a stochastic process. Rather, the predominate argument of the the thread is whether natural selection is a stochastic process. Given that the founders of the Modern Synthesis formulated a hypothesis that natural selection is a stochastic process and that that hypothesis has not been falsified over the past 50 years, it speaks volumes about your knowledge of evolutionary biology that you think I am "ineducable".

I believe it was in your silly "why is there a discontinuity in the fossil record?" thread where Dr Adequate could reach his conclusion. He was your advocate and patiently answered your questions in great detail with illustrations and links. And your conclusion was "so scientists can't explain the discontinuity, eh?" I think many people concluded at that point that you were ineducable... others waited until you started and derailed even more threads without ever listening to any of the detailed answer people gave--because you just assume you already know the answer.

I think it speaks volumes for your density that you don't understand why most smart people feel that you are "ineducable". The evidence is all over this forum and assorted other skeptic forums where you spew the same garbled nothingness.

I think Dr Adequate's many writings and skeptwiki are testament to his knowledge on evolutionary biology... Nothing needs to "speak volumes"-- he's written volumes--clear, coherent, beautifully written, much praised, "volumes". You just spin out semantic blather. There's not a gem of wisdom, truth, depth, in any of your words. You insult others so that you can feel better than them, but you are only fooling other fools.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Well, that's just semantics, which is why it's possible to debate it for 2000 posts without reaching agreement.

We know what natural selection does, we can understand the theory, make the predictions, and do the math, without answering that question or ever even thinking about it.

It's a quibble about words. If people started drawing different predictions from the two alternatives, then it would be a real issue. But so far as I know, they don't and it isn't.

The "semantic argument" argument is an old and tried red herring. You and articulett would be the first to point out that the creationist argument that evolution cold be wrong because evolution "is only a theory" is a straw man, because the definition of "theory" is different within the scientific community that it is in everyday conversation. Nevertheless you and articulett are ignoring that the publications in which Dawkins asserts that evolution is non-random are aimed toward a popular audience and therefore use the popular definition of "random". You two are also ignoring that within the peer-reviewed literature, "random" is most often used in a way that is synonymous with "stochastic".

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by articulett

Don't derail this thread Mijo..

How is discussing a fact about evolution that has been well-established since the 1950's derailing a thread entitled "Evolution :the Facts"?

Originally Posted by articulett

and I will use my words to characterize my own argument.

And you will deny that you have said thing that it is easy enough for other to prove you said.

Originally Posted by articulett

You haven't got a clue.

I am more aware of the past 50 years of research in evolutionary biology than you are. You choose to rely on press releases and popular accounts of evolution instead of the preponderance of the peer-reviewed literature.

Originally Posted by articulett

Go play on the thread you derailed over there. Don't embarrass yourself here.

For the millionth time, the thread that you have posted your senseless rants in was merged with a thread that I was participating in which had an OP the specifically addressed the usage of "random" and "stochastic" in evolutionary biology.

Also, you only think that I am "embarrassing" myself because most people here have similar backgrounds to you and therefore agree with you. However, as you have been shown multiple times at RDF, the theories that Dawkins and others presented in their popular publications:

1. assume infinite population sizes
2. ignore genetic drift

They are thus a good starting point for understanding but fail to cover many cases within evolutionary biology. Putting these simplified models as completely descriptive of evolution (as you do when you insist that Dawkins' statements refute the fact that evolution is a stochastic process.

[articulett]

so sad... but so funny. (It almost makes me miss Kleinman.)

(I encourage others not to feed any trolls and perhaps the mods will split off the derail.)

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by articulett

I believe it was in your silly "why is there a discontinuity in the fossil record?" thread where Dr Adequate could reach his conclusion. He was your advocate and patiently answered your questions in great detail with illustrations and links. And your conclusion was "so scientists can't explain the discontinuity, eh?"

That was not my conclusion. If had bothered to read what I had written in that thread, you would have seen that my problem in understanding was based on the assumption that popular representations (e.g., the opening sequence from "The Simpsons", "The Descent of Man", etc.) were accurate representations of how scientists understood evolution to work. Since the error was in my understanding of evolution and not the theory of evolution, I never concluded that scientists had no explanation for the "discontinuity" in the fossil record.

Originally Posted by articulett

I think many people concluded at that point that you were ineducable... others waited until you started and derailed even more threads without ever listening to any of the detailed answer people gave--because you just assume you already know the answer.

I think it speaks volumes for your density that you don't understand why most smart people feel that you are "ineducable". The evidence is all over this forum and assorted other skeptic forums where you spew the same garbled nothingness.

No, "[t]he evidence is all over this forum and assorted other skeptic forums" is that very few people who spend their time defending evolution on the internet have not read Fisher, Wright, Haldane, Maynard-Smith, Kimura, Ohta, Nei, Mayr, Gould, and many other evolutionary biologists’ peer-reviewed publications. Instead, they settle for the popular publication of evolutionary biologists and pretend that the present anything close to a complete representation of how evolutionary biologists understand evolution.

Originally Posted by articulett

I think Dr Adequates many writings and skeptwiki are testament to his knowledge on evolutionary biology... Nothing needs to "speak volumes"-- he's written volumes--clear, coherent, beautifully written, much praised, "volumes". You just spin out semantic blather. There's not a gem of wisdom, truth, depth, in any of your words. You insult others so that you can feel better than them, but you are only fooling other fools.

Oh, so writings of an anonymous person on the internet outweigh The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection or The Causes of Evolution?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by articulett

so sad... but so funny. (It almost makes me miss Kleinman.)

(I encourage others not to feed any trolls and perhaps the mods will split off the derail.)

Why not actually read the evolutionary biologists I have listed and build an argument that they say that evolution is not a stochastic process?

[The Atheist]

I've just asked for this discussion to be moved to a new thread - not really appropriate for this one.

Thanks

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I've just asked for this discussion to be moved to a new thread - not really appropriate for this one.

Thanks

How so?

That evolution and natural selection are stochastic processes has been a well-established fact since the 1950s. Just because there is a contingent here that prefers discussion of simplified theories of evolution and natural selection to the theories that have been laid out and subsequently not falsified doesn't mean that evolution's being a stochastic process is not a germane to a discussion of the facts of evolution.

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

How so?

That evolution and natural selection are stochastic processes has been a well-established fact since the 1950s. Just because there is a contingent here that prefers discussion of simplified theories of evolution and natural selection to the theories that have been laid out and subsequently not falsified doesn't mean that evolution's being a stochastic process is not a germane to a discussion of the facts of evolution.

Tell us what parts of evolution that are not random, and what parts are.

Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

How so?

That evolution and natural selection are stochastic processes has been a well-established fact since the 1950s. Just because there is a contingent here that prefers discussion of simplified theories of evolution and natural selection to the theories that have been laid out and subsequently not falsified doesn't mean that evolution's being a stochastic process is not a germane to a discussion of the facts of evolution.

So you've abandoned the whole "evolution is random" claim? Good.

So, if you've abandoned your "simplified" (i.e. wrong) "theories of evolution", and you are now willing to agree with the rest of the world about the nature of evolution, what are you complaining about?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Tell us what parts of evolution that are not random, and what parts are.

Paul

Let's start with mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Some, such as mutation and natural selection, may be biased to one outcome or another. For instance, the probability of mutation is not uniform across the genome (there are hot spots of mutation with in the genome) and natural selection is defined as the differential probability of reproduction across different phenotypes. Unfortunately, bias does not equate to non-randomness, and no-one has produced credible evidence that all individuals possessing each phenotype within a population either reproduce or fail to reproduce.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

The "semantic argument" argument is an old and tried red herring. You and articulett would be the first to point out that the creationist argument that evolution cold be wrong because evolution "is only a theory" is a straw man, because the definition of "theory" is different within the scientific community that it is in everyday conversation. Nevertheless you and articulett are ignoring that the publications in which Dawkins asserts that evolution is non-random are aimed toward a popular audience and therefore use the popular definition of "random". You two are also ignoring that within the peer-reviewed literature, "random" is most often used in a way that is synonymous with "stochastic".

Ah, I see. I wondered why you'd briefly started telling the truth, but now I understand. Having admitted that evolution is a stochastic process, you're going to pretend that this means the same as "evolution is random".

Do let us know if you fool anyone. (Creationists don't count, as they are already wrong.)

[Paulhoff]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

For instance, the probability of mutation is not uniform across the genome

That would be random right there for one.

Paul

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Ah, I see. I wondered why you'd briefly started telling the truth, but now I understand. Having admitted that evolution is a stochastic process, you're going to pretend that this means the same as "evolution is random".

Do let us know if you fool anyone. (Creationists don't count, as they are already wrong.)

This is just a silly argument because I have been explicitly that, within the context of the discussion on this thread (and the thread that started nearly two years ago), "random" is synonymous to "stochastic" only in so far as both mean "based on probability". If you have evidence that there is only one outcome for thte reproduction of each phenotype within a population, you should present it, as it falsify the Modern Synthesis and probably win you a Nobel Prize in the process. However, pretending that I am making some sort of unorthodox statement about evolution because I say that it is accurate to call it "random" if you carefully explain what you mean by random before is as misleading as you would like others to think calling evolution "random" is in the first place.

[MG1962]

Can I jump into this gunfight for a minute. Back in the 80's there was a lot of interest in the "Evolutionary Pump" theory. Googling brings nothing up, so I am guessing the concept died or has a new name.

If it has a new name, is this an example of evolution operating in a non random way. If it doesn't exist any more, what explanation is there for say the dramatic and quick evolution of the whale and the seeminly frozen state of shark evolution.

**Ducks back into the saloon before being hit by a richocette**

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Oh, so writings of an anonymous person on the internet outweigh The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection or The Causes of Evolution?

Since your mishmash of nonsense appears in neither of those works, which I note that you did not write, a more apt question would be whether my writings outweigh the writings of another anonymous person on the Internet. To which the answer is yes, they are indeed superior to your tedious attempts at obfuscation --- but then, one could say the same of complete silence.

[six7s]

Mijo, long time no see

It was great to see your back!

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

That was not my conclusion. If had bothered to read what I had written in that thread, you would have seen that my problem in understanding was based on the assumption that <snippedForTheSakeOfBrevitySanityAndCosicanity/>

As ever, you seem to be having significant problems with language, this time omitting and mixing up pronouns

Allow me:

That was not my conclusion. If <insert>I</insert>had bothered to read what I had written in that thread, you <insert>I</insert>would have seen that my problem in understanding was based on the assumption that blah, blah,blah

As ever, I am happy to help

To illustrate this, here's a link you might want to follow to see a listing all of the places where your insight is still required

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Since your mishmash of nonsense appears in neither of those works, which I note that you did not write, a more apt question would be whether my writings outweigh the writings of another anonymous person on the Internet. To which the answer is yes, they are indeed superior to your tedious attempts at obfuscation --- but then, one could say the same of complete silence.

Nice misdirection!

If you insist that these works do not say that evolution is a stochastic process, you have obviously not read them nor apparently have you read any mojor evolutionary biologist since the 1920s. What it seem you have done though is substitute explanations written for a popular audience for what evolutionaryu biologists actually say in their peer-reviewed publications.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Nice misdirection!

If you insist that these works do not say that evolution is a stochastic process, you have obviously not read them nor apparently have you read any mojor evolutionary biologist since the 1920s. What it seem you have done though is substitute explanations written for a popular audience for what evolutionaryu biologists actually say in their peer-reviewed publications.

Would you care to name five "major" evolutionary biologists within the last 20years who believe and support your wonderful little claim and cite their works which you seem to be such an expert of?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

This is just a silly argument because I have been explicitly that, within the context of the discussion on this thread (and the thread that started nearly two years ago), "random" is synonymous to "stochastic" only in so far as both mean "based on probability".

And in so far as they do not mean the same thing, they are not synonymous.

Quote:

If you have evidence that there is only one outcome for thte reproduction of each phenotype within a population, you should present it, as it falsify the Modern Synthesis and probably win you a Nobel Prize in the process.

I made no such claim, and you will deceive no-one into believing that I did.

Quote:

However, pretending that I am making some sort of unorthodox statement about evolution because I say that it is accurate to call it "random" if you carefully explain what you mean by random ...

It is perfectly true that if, every time you say "evolution is random" you also explain that when you say "evolution is random" you don't mean that evolution is random, then people will not take your statement that evolution is random as meaning that evolution is random --- assuming that they understand and believe your explanation of how you don't mean what you're actually saying.

They may think that you've gone off your head, but that's your problem.

You might also truthfully claim to be an aadvark so long as you carefully explain that by "aardvark" you don't mean aardvark; this too would allow you to grasp at the shadow of a silly lie while claiming your statements to be true in substance. But I have no idea why you'd want to.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Nice misdirection!

If you insist that these works do not say that evolution is a stochastic process ...

Of course, I insist on no such thing.

What I said was that "your mishmash of nonsense appears in neither of those works". As everyone reading this thread can see what I wrote, you will not deceive anyone into thinking that I said something else.

I don't see why you are whining about "misdirection", since you identify none in my post, but when you follow this vacuous complain with deceitful garbage like that, you pile hypocrisy on mendacity.

Quote:

... you have obviously not read them nor apparently have you read any mojor evolutionary biologist since the 1920s. What it seem you have done though is substitute explanations written for a popular audience for what evolutionaryu biologists actually say in their peer-reviewed publications.

What a strange fantasy. Though I guess it's no stranger than the other stuff you've made up.

You should note that whether or not you can control your instinct for falsehood, you are unlikely to deceive me as to what I have and haven't read.

[articulett]

He actually can twist the words of a few people and their definitions and allude that they are saying what he is saying... but all he's really saying is "evolution is random" because he desperately needs it to be so.

He's been shown a peer reviewed study from 2007 that says: Evolution is deterministic, not random, biologists conclude from multi-species study http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-...-study-1268-1/

--and yet he maintains with a straight face that the authors of this study are using their words wrong and being less clear than he is!

He cannot understand anything he reads... none of the papers he quotes... he just reads the words so that he can prove to himself that some scientists somewhere think it's useful or informative to say "evolution is random". (His new tactic is to use "stochastic" as a synonym for random... just like creationism morphed into ID with the hopes of drawing more respect.)

I challenge anyone to find one great clear sentence of Mijo's-- or even the point of what he's trying to say. In his mind there's this great contingent of scientists discovering that evolution is really "random" (however one wishes to define that term) because (gasp!) in can be modeled using probabilities and no one can "prove" that unbiased processes are not "random"-- (though few people who are trying to clarify would refer to a biased process as "random"--just as they wouldn't refer to a loaded dice as random and they'd distinguish the randomness in poker from the randomness of roulette.) Per Mijo's definition, elections are as random as lotteries! Every "thing" is random just as every "thing" is a noun. Truly he never says anything more informative about evolution than calling it a noun. Sure, evolution IS a noun, but why the hell would anyone who cares about describing the process to anyone need to emphasize that? They wouldn't. Unless their goal was to obfuscate understanding.

In his mind he's trying to prove that creationist misconceptions are true--this nutty idea that evolution is a "theory of chance"--it's the best the creationists have these days:

From a review of a creotard book:

Quote:

A detailed critique being out of the question, the strategy adopted here is to focus upon two themes that are characteristic of the book's treatment of evolutionary biology: chance and typology.

The first theme, which occurs repeatedly as a leitmotif, is that familiar old war horse, "Mere Chance." It first appears in the preface with the statement that since Charles Darwin's time "... chance ruled supreme. God's will was replaced by the capriciousness of a roulette wheel." In a later passage is found the assertion: "The driving force behind the whole of evolution was the purely random process of natural selection" (p. 60). Equating natural selection and the origin of adaptations with "problem solving by trial and error" and "gigantic random searches" is a repeated theme (e.g., pp. 61 and 308).

Pejorative appeal to naive notions of "chance" is typical of creation science literature and is a clear sign that Denton's book is not to be taken as a serious book on biology.

http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analy...-theory-crisis

I know that people here aren't fooled, but it does seem to confuse a few people (see Recursive Prophet). When people understand how natural selection is NOT pure chance, their "intelligent designer" becomes superfluous. Mijo derailed a thread on the Dawkins forum that was entitled "How Evolution is Not Pure Random Chance" to tell everyone that it really is "pure random chance" (per his convoluted reasoning.) And he asserts that all these important people agree with him. It makes me laugh, but I'm lucky enough to understand why it is so laughable. Some people are gobbling up this garbage and sounding just as muddled as the folks putting it in their heads. --Which wouldn't be so awful if it didn't keep them from understanding some of the most profound things humans have come to know. They bad mouth those who share the facts while never saying anything intelligible at all. Mijo actually thinks he's being more scientifically "rigorous" than Dawkins??!! Or Dr Adequate?!? He imagines the people he quotes are supporting his nothingness?!?

Ask yourself why someone is so desperate to "win" the equivalent of the statement "evolution is a noun"? Why would they need to characterize anyone who was being more clear as someone who is claiming that "evolution is a verb". This is exactly what Mijo is doing. Just substitute "random" for "noun". Biologists Ken Miller has this to say about such a tactic:

I have no idea why someone would take a term like natural selection and say it is random... Natural selection is a distinctly non-random process that acts as a sieve through which genetic changes are filtered. Just as a sieve filled with various rocks will not end up filtering out its contents randomly, natural selection does not filter organisms randomly. http://forthesakeofscience.wordpress...is-not-random/

I have no doubt all respected biologists would agree. And none of it has anything to do with the "proper" definition of words (I find it hysterical that Mijo imagines himself the definer of the "correct definitions"-bwa ha ha ha ha--as if!)

Learn from the real experts folks--not the ones who imagine themselves to be such.

[recursive prophet]

YOu have a truly Shakespearean bent Articulett; Mush Ado About Nothing. Would you like me to send you a link to the reply by your ally MZ where he states that while he knows evolution is random, it doesn’t apply to selection? And it is you who keep claiming we say selection is random, when in fact the claim is that it’s stochastic? Do you understand the difference? And for the record, I count at least 9 regular posters on the Dawkins ‘random’ thread who argue selection is stochastic compared with 3 who claim it isn’t.

As Mohammed won’t go to the mountain, I posted susu’ latest reply to MZbiologist, only one of two 'determinists' left on the thread, who continues to argue not that selection isn’t necessarily stochastic and now claims that it’s a philosophical issue. The second is one of susu's earlier comments where he gives a summary of his viewpoint. Note how he makes a detailed reply to each of MZ’s points, and does not emulate his ad hom insults.

I've edited out the very confusing copy/paste I posted earlier. Sorry if this was confusing, but I lacked time to write in the code difference and wasn't even sure it would work as those quoted aren't members here combined with restrictions on new posters. I'm grateful to mijo for doing it for me, and I will use his formant in future quotes from the Dawkins site, or just post links after I hit 15 replies and can do so. I’d love to read a comprehensive response to the points susu has made that mijo posted on the page 2, and again invite any ‘determinists’ to weigh in at Dawkins. Of course those who agree selection is stochastic are also welcome, but that side really doesn’t need any help.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

YOu have a truly Shakespearean bent Articulett; Mush Ado About Nothing.
<enormous, garbled, and incomprehensible post immediately following that comment snipped>

The debate here was over an almost totally meaningless semantic distinction, with a creationist subtext. If you want to resurrect it , I suggest you begin by defining "stochastic". Then we can have a poll and see who agrees with the claim that "evolution is stochastic" under your definition.

Note that there need to be three options ("true", "false", and "not even wrong"), as there are many statements ("evolution is random" is one) which are partially true and partially false, particularly when your definition is as stupid as mijo's was.

Oh, and by the way - the answer is E and 3, as every schoolchild knows.