[Split Thread] Is evolution stochastic? - Page 10

Dr Adequate · 23rd February 2009, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Walter Wayne

And have reaped a single drive-by post.

Walter Wayne · 23rd February 2009, 09:51 AM

Given the quote, I was expecting a whirlwind at the link you provided and didn't find it.

recursive prophet · 23rd February 2009, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Walter Wayne

I must be having a bad brain day; couldn't find the post by Dawkins in the thread.

Walt

No Walt, I HAD one when I posted that reply. Sorry, I actually didn’t realize anyone was still reading this thread. Fact is I considered sending my reply to Doc in a PM so as not to bump it. I should have mentioned it wasn’t on the random thread but in the RD forum. Same questions though, and the effects of drift in small populations-which most are at some point-has been one of the big topics. And earlier, lbq and others got into the adaptationist issue. Recursive indeed. Lumpers and splitters, say I, the eternal struggle of natural science.

You must admit it’s interesting that on a thread where Richard Dawkins has made 3 substantial replies there was so little traffic. No one has commented on the astute question susu posed to Dawkins early yesterday, and after a week it accumulated only 3 pages of replies. DWFTTW got 4 in its first 24 hours.

Just decided I shall add a couple questions there. RD makes some pretty definitive statements lately on the non-randomness of selection. As both the determinists and the stochastic apostates quote mine his words, I really think he should take the time to counter all those who in any way have misinterpreted his thinking. I sent him a PM with links to the debate on selection between some very informed users way back in part one of that thread, focusing on disagreements over the parsing of his statements. Hopefully this recent activity will lead to his putting an end of any erroneous application of his position on the nature of NS.

Thread starts here.
First Dawkins response.
susu’s final question.

GreyICE · 23rd February 2009, 12:56 PM

My wan, this debate has dead ended in pointless. If you consider the simple statement that models frequently contain false simplifications ambiguous, we cannot discuss anything intelligent. Models frequently assume, among other things:

Gravity is constant with distance above earth, and is a flat, unvaried field.
Constant force produces constant acceleration (mass is invariant with acceleration). Constant acceleration produces constant velocity changes in all frames.
Time in different relativistic frames is identical (the observer on the train and the observer at the station agree on the time)
Electromagnetism doesn't exist
Van der Waals forces don't exist
Air obeys the ideal gas laws
Steam obeys the ideal gas laws
Pressure is a constant across a surface at all times unless conditions change
Matter is homogeneous (i.e. has no atoms)
Building structural supports have no compressive load (i.e. the building has no weight, 100% of the load is torque/shear).

I have seen, used, and worked with plenty of models that contain all of these assumptions. They were, in fact, quite brilliant models, and these assumptions are quite necessary for them to operate.

That is not to say any of these assumptions are in any way true.

If you say you can model a deterministic process as random, well, you've stated nothing useful. To pretend its equivocation to say that is just silly.

Dr Adequate · 23rd February 2009, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

Many pages later nothing seems really resolved, so it appears you were right in your first post here about the futility of the subject.

Then apparently it has resolved something, namely that I was right.

I knew that all along.

my_wan · 26th February 2009, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

My wan, this debate has dead ended in pointless. If you consider the simple statement that models frequently contain false simplifications ambiguous, we cannot discuss anything intelligent.

Not false just simplified. Calling it false just because the model contains random elements that may or may not ultimately be deterministic undermines the formal definition of randomness itself, and demands that it mean things that the formal definition stays silent on for a reason.

Originally Posted by GreyICE

If you say you can model a deterministic process as random, well, you've stated nothing useful. To pretend its equivocation to say that is just silly.

It did turn out to be useful when we figured out that randomness was actually caused by collisions in a liquid. It proved the existence of the atom. I am equivocating because I can't honestly claim that all randomness in nature has causal underpinnings. If some aspect is truly random then stating so means nothing as you say. However, if something does have meaningful causal underpinnings, finding it even in theory, can have empirical consequences such as proving the existence of the atom historically.

If I don't hear any more accusations that so and so said X because they said Y, not X, I am happy without convincing anyone. So keep the definition of your choice, but I will be ruthless if I hear such characterizations of others words again.

23rd February 2009, 10:47 AM	#363
recursive prophet Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2008 Location: Escondido, CA Posts: 1,135	Originally Posted by Walter Wayne I must be having a bad brain day; couldn't find the post by Dawkins in the thread. Walt No Walt, I HAD one when I posted that reply. Sorry, I actually didn’t realize anyone was still reading this thread. Fact is I considered sending my reply to Doc in a PM so as not to bump it. I should have mentioned it wasn’t on the random thread but in the RD forum. Same questions though, and the effects of drift in small populations-which most are at some point-has been one of the big topics. And earlier, lbq and others got into the adaptationist issue. Recursive indeed. Lumpers and splitters, say I, the eternal struggle of natural science. You must admit it’s interesting that on a thread where Richard Dawkins has made 3 substantial replies there was so little traffic. No one has commented on the astute question susu posed to Dawkins early yesterday, and after a week it accumulated only 3 pages of replies. DWFTTW got 4 in its first 24 hours. Just decided I shall add a couple questions there. RD makes some pretty definitive statements lately on the non-randomness of selection. As both the determinists and the stochastic apostates quote mine his words, I really think he should take the time to counter all those who in any way have misinterpreted his thinking. I sent him a PM with links to the debate on selection between some very informed users way back in part one of that thread, focusing on disagreements over the parsing of his statements. Hopefully this recent activity will lead to his putting an end of any erroneous application of his position on the nature of NS. Thread starts here. First Dawkins response. susu’s final question.
	__________________ Hanlon's Razor: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

23rd February 2009, 12:56 PM	#364
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	My wan, this debate has dead ended in pointless. If you consider the simple statement that models frequently contain false simplifications ambiguous, we cannot discuss anything intelligent. Models frequently assume, among other things: Gravity is constant with distance above earth, and is a flat, unvaried field. Constant force produces constant acceleration (mass is invariant with acceleration). Constant acceleration produces constant velocity changes in all frames. Time in different relativistic frames is identical (the observer on the train and the observer at the station agree on the time) Electromagnetism doesn't exist Van der Waals forces don't exist Air obeys the ideal gas laws Steam obeys the ideal gas laws Pressure is a constant across a surface at all times unless conditions change Matter is homogeneous (i.e. has no atoms) Building structural supports have no compressive load (i.e. the building has no weight, 100% of the load is torque/shear). I have seen, used, and worked with plenty of models that contain all of these assumptions. They were, in fact, quite brilliant models, and these assumptions are quite necessary for them to operate. That is not to say any of these assumptions are in any way true. If you say you can model a deterministic process as random, well, you've stated nothing useful. To pretend its equivocation to say that is just silly.
GreyICE Guest Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 7,173	Last edited by GreyICE; 23rd February 2009 at 12:59 PM.

26th February 2009, 10:55 AM	#366
my_wan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,077	Originally Posted by GreyICE My wan, this debate has dead ended in pointless. If you consider the simple statement that models frequently contain false simplifications ambiguous, we cannot discuss anything intelligent. Not false just simplified. Calling it false just because the model contains random elements that may or may not ultimately be deterministic undermines the formal definition of randomness itself, and demands that it mean things that the formal definition stays silent on for a reason. Originally Posted by GreyICE If you say you can model a deterministic process as random, well, you've stated nothing useful. To pretend its equivocation to say that is just silly. It did turn out to be useful when we figured out that randomness was actually caused by collisions in a liquid. It proved the existence of the atom. I am equivocating because I can't honestly claim that all randomness in nature has causal underpinnings. If some aspect is truly random then stating so means nothing as you say. However, if something does have meaningful causal underpinnings, finding it even in theory, can have empirical consequences such as proving the existence of the atom historically. If I don't hear any more accusations that so and so said X because they said Y, not X, I am happy without convincing anyone. So keep the definition of your choice, but I will be ruthless if I hear such characterizations of others words again.
my_wan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,077	__________________ Peace to all people of the world. The evidence indicates that this is best accomplished through a skeptical approach.

23rd February 2009, 09:06 AM	#361
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Walter Wayne And have reaped a single drive-by post.

23rd February 2009, 09:51 AM	#362
Walter Wayne Wayne's Words Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,442	Given the quote, I was expecting a whirlwind at the link you provided and didn't find it.

23rd February 2009, 06:57 PM	#365
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by recursive prophet Many pages later nothing seems really resolved, so it appears you were right in your first post here about the futility of the subject. Then apparently it has resolved something, namely that I was right. I knew that all along.