Intelligent design's predictions

[articulett]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Let me ask a question that might help clarify things, around here:

Mijo, do you accept that evoution is not only a fact, but a fact powerful enough to explain all of the wide variety of life around us, with no pre-existing entity or intelligence necessary?

I image that Michael Behe might also accept evolution as "fact", but he would also be inclined to think that it not powerful enough to explain everything, and therefore would also try to claim that something else must help in the designs.

Anwering my question should help clarify if you really are a creationist, or not. Not that your answer is really terribly relevant to the overall discussion of ID's "predictions". But, at least it will shut some of us up about it.

Ask him why he keeps on insisting on calling evolution random when he knows that is Behe's obfuscating trick and he has repeatedly been shown that Dawkins et. al. say that "natural selection" is NOT random... it is the opposite of random. Why is he beholden to creationist terminology and arguing for it being explanatory when the evidence is that it confuses more than it clarifies? Why does he think he is being more explanatory than Dawkins.

Ask him to explain how the order comes from the randomness in evolution and how he'd explain the falsity of the tornado/747 analogy using his "evolution is random" stance? Listen, I'd shut up the moment he stops sounding like Behe bleating that evolution is random... Or even if he spent one second thanking all the people on this forum and links provided showing him why it was misleading and uninformative and useless to describe evolution in the manner he does. Or anyone can show me evidence that he can convey understanding of natural selection or doesn't have Behe's obsession with evolutions randomness. His quotes are all over this board. Behe's quotes are everywhere. Heck, if Mijo said one thing that sounded more like something those who understand evolution would say and less like something Behe would say... I'd take it under consideration. But like Behe... he just never says anything. The more he says the less you understand. The only understanding you get is the same you have with Behe-- they both feel like it makes sense to focus on the randomness of evolution while sweeping natural selection under the rug. Darwin's critique of Behe's book sums up my critique with everything Mijo says.... http://richarddawkins.net/article,13...ichard-Dawkins

Darwin set no store by randomness. New variants might arise at random, or they might be acquired characteristics induced by food, for all Darwin knew. Far more important for Darwin was the nonrandom process whereby some survived but others perished. Natural selection is arguably the most momentous idea ever to occur to a human mind, because it — alone as far as we know — explains the elegant illusion of design that pervades the living kingdoms and explains, in passing, us. Whatever else it is, natural selection is not a "modest" idea, nor is descent with modification.

I'm begging you, mijo or anyone to show me the difference between what Mijo is saying and what Behe is saying.... or even to sum up what Mijo's point is... or Behe's. What do you think Behe's obsession with randomness means and why do you think Mijo's insistence on using the term is motivated by something different? Is Tai's? What person who is good at communicating the process of evolution to anyone sounds like they do? Why would they insist on referring to evolution as random after repeatedly being provided with quotes like the above showing that natural selection is NOT RANDOM and is the KEY for understanding how the appearance of design comes about.

If it quacks like Behe--

Notice the queries he avoids and answer obliquely... observe Behe's similarly cagey responses in the Dover transcript.

If I didn't want to be confused with a creationist, I'd be damn sure I didn't sound as muddled as they did and as obsessed with randomness and similar strawmen that they are. Either Mijo is an intelligent design proponent, or he has done nothing to distinguish himself one despite multiple opportunities to do so and multiple supposed requests for members of this forum to explain things to him (discontinuity in the fossil record... how evolution is not random, etc.)

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Mijo, do you accept that evoution is not only a fact, but a fact powerful enough to explain all of the wide variety of life around us, with no pre-existing entity or intelligence necessary?

Yes, I think that evolution is powerful enough to explain the diversity of living organisms today and how such diversity came to be without invoking the supernatural. I just think that probability theory is also powerful enough to explain evolution and that it may be more fruitful to try to explain evolution in terms of probability theory, because, while the processes that govern natural selection may in fact and in principle be deterministic, it may be impossible in practice to obtain the level of accuracy in measurement to reveal such determinism. Thus these processes will always appear random. Additionally, it is to the benefit of evolutionary biology to try to explain how evolution can occur even if it is random. It just seems extremely dishonest to me to say that evolution by natural selection non-random but then describe it as operating on probabilities.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Let me ask a question that might help clarify things, around here:

Mijo, do you accept that evoution is not only a fact, but a fact powerful enough to explain all of the wide variety of life around us, with no pre-existing entity or intelligence necessary?

I image that Michael Behe might also accept evolution as "fact", but he would also be inclined to think that it not powerful enough to explain everything, and therefore would also try to claim that something else must help in the designs.

Anwering my question should help clarify if you really are a creationist, or not. Not that your answer is really terribly relevant to the overall discussion of ID's "predictions". But, at least it will shut some of us up about it.

BTW, I think Behe would dodge that question by inferring that it's possible... that he's not saying it's impossible... but he's concerned that it's highly unlikely that everything could be explained by randomness.

And this is true. But scientists don't use randomness to describe evolution. Creationists do. So Mijo, like Behe, will do something similar or ignore the question... he won't really say anything while inferring an answer that sounds like he's saying what you hope to hear. You can't pin a creationist down... they always have to have that wiggle room.

You can't address their claims because they never quite say anything. Really. Behe infers more than he says, but he seldom says anything that can be challenged.

You want him not to be a creationist... but what if he is? How would you know? Do you think you could pin Behe down on anything? He claims not to be a creationist either.
Are you worried about your ego... that you might have to apologize to me for seeing bad intentions on my part rather on the one with dishonest intent? Even you can be fooled.
I'm willing to examine all evidence to the contrary. I have been reading Mijo for some time. I'm not the only one who has reached this conclusion. His posts are all over this forum, and if the best you can come up with is what you've cut and pasted, then my opinion remains as is.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Additionally, it is to the benefit of evolutionary biology to try to explain how evolution can occur even if it is random. It just seems extremely dishonest to me to say that evolution by natural selection non-random but then describe it as operating on probabilities.

So, Dawkins is dishonest, and you, Mijo, are more honest-- correct? And, therefore Behe is more honest than Dawkins by focusing on the random aspects of evolution, right?-- because that explains things so much better. Or am I misperceiving your words? You have repeatedly stated that all those who refer to natural selection as nonrandom (including Dawkins) are being unclear while asserting that your way (which is very similar to Behe's) is more clear-- right? And since it's so fruitful to explain evolution in terms of probability theory- please do so...

And why the hell aren't any other current biologists describing things the way you are? Other than Behe, I mean.

Oh, and wowbagger... go ahead... sum up what it is you think he's saying (if anything) and how do you think Behe would answer that question differently. Dishonesty has many shades of obfuscation, you know. And how would you answer it. Compare. Contrast. Conclude.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Therein lies the inconsistency you can't argue that survival is non-deterministic and then say that it is non-random. "Random" and "deterministic" in their mathematical senses, which is how I have always used them (a courtesy which has not been returned by those who disagree with me), are antonyms and the only two possibilities for describing a particular aspect of a system. In other words, if a system is non-deterministic (in the mathematical sense), it is random (in the mathematical sense), and if a system is non-random (in the mathematical sense), it is deterministic (in the mathematical sense).

By the way, I have mentioned many times in previous discussion that I am not inextricably bound to "random" as the word that one must use to describe evolution. I do however think that it is important that emphasize the idea of randomness/stochasticity/probability/contingency when discussing evolution rather than insisting that evolution is non-random but somehow based probability.

Yes, yes, but that wasn't really the point. The point I asked was whether or not you thought we were arguing from the vantage of supposing phenotypic determinism as THE answer. At times that seems to be what you presuppose of those with whom you have argued.

As we have discussed before, everything is either indeterministic/acausal (uncertainty principle) or deterministic (at the level of discussion concerning evolution), or possibly some combination of the above.

It makes more sense at the level of discussion where evolution takes place to speak of it all as deterministic when considering the grand parade. Our ignorance being what it is, though, we speak of probabilities. But this makes all mention of 'randomness' merely a description of our ignorance and not a fundamental feature of the process.

Now that I have repeated myself for the nth time, I'm pulling out of this discussion before it circles out of control.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by Ichneumonwasp

Y
Now that I have repeated myself for the nth time, I'm pulling out of this discussion before it circles out of control.

Me too... been there; done that. I really don't like this "evolution is random" obfuscation-- like Dawkins, I feel like slapping it down wherever I see it-- because it is a good technique for brainwashing the faithful... and I see it again and again. (Clearly T'ai is evidence of the brain damage it can induce...) It's the very best technique the ID crowd has for keeping people ignorant and thus in need of their god for an explanation.

But I'm sure the best explanations will evolve alongside the best creationist obfuscation techniques with or without my input.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by articulett

So, Dawkins is dishonest, and you, Mijo, are more honest-- correct? And, therefore Behe is more honest than Dawkins by focusing on the random aspects of evolution, right?-- because that explains things so much better. Or am I misperceiving your words? You have repeatedly stated that all those who refer to natural selection as nonrandom (including Dawkins) are being unclear while asserting that your way (which is very similar to Behe's) is more clear-- right? And since it's so fruitful to explain evolution in terms of probability theory- please do so...

And why the hell aren't any other current biologists describing things the way you are? Other than Behe, I mean.

Oh, and wowbagger... go ahead... sum up what it is you think he's saying (if anything.)

You are most definitely "misperceiving" my words, articulett (and I dare say trying to discredit me by doing so). I do believe that it is dishonest to insist the evolution is non-random and then describe it in terms of probabilities of survival, but I don't believe I have said that Behe explains evolution any better. In fact I have said that insisting that evolution cannot occur because it is random is equally, if not more dishonest, that than the hand-wavy non-random description.

If you want a description of evolution in terms of probability, you might try this.

[articulett]

That isn't a description of evolution in terms of probability... that is a model where natural selection is included in the variable. I worked as a genetic counselor for many years... I am well aware of how probability is used in evolution. But no scientist I know equates the word random with "anything having to do with probability". That's because it's a useless definition for conveying understanding. Only you do that. And you do that so you can conclude that evolution is "random"... your word of obsession... just like Behe's. You cannot convey or explain how the randomness leads to the appearance of design-- because you are stuck on the word random.

But I've seen you run around this semantic circle a hundred times... just like Behe... let wowbagger chase you... he's one of the few that hasn't caught on yet... so you have yourself a fun little audience to bleat your behe-esque nothingness. I am sure someone will inform me via e-mail if you say anything useful that clarifies understanding for them.

I find it much more fruitful to talk about creationists than to try and talk to them. Your dialogues sound as muddled as Behe and Kleinman and Tai' dialogues. They go nowhere... they say nothing... they digress while you guys avoid being pinned down to anything. You have no point. You talk so that you can keep boosting up this notion in your head that you are right about something. Just like Behe. But damned if any of the rest of us know what it is.

(So how is that formula you linked more "fruitful" than Dawkins description again? And for what exactly?)

[qayak]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

I do believe that it is dishonest to insist the evolution is non-random and then describe it in terms of probabilities of survival . . .

Why? Probability of survival does not = Random.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by articulett

That isn't a description of evolution in terms of probability... that is a model where natural selection is included in the variable. I worked as a genetic counselor for many years... I am well aware of how probability is used in evolution. But no scientist I know equates the word random with "anything having to do with probability". That's because it's a useless definition for conveying understanding. Only you do that. And you do that so you can conclude that evolution is "random"... your word of obsession... just like Behe's. You cannot convey or explain how the randomness leads to the appearance of design-- because you are stuck on the word random.

What can I say?

This is the same old crap that I have been getting from you for months now. You dismiss my sources without explanation, which implies you haven't even read them. You also insist on dismissing my definition because you claim they don't convey meaning, which implies that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Will you please address my arguments?

[articulett]

BTW, Behe doesn't insist that evolution can't occur... he does what you do... he focuses on random and bluster so that natural selection is not understood. This way the amazing design seems "unlikely" to have occurred without a purpose... He concedes a lot of things about evolution... including common descent... it's the part he glosses over that infers that scientists think this all happened randomly-- a misstaement at best. And that is what you are doing. Even if others haven't quite caught on yet.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by qayak

Why? Probability of survival does not = Random.

The probability may not be random but the probability distribution of individuals' survivals is what makes natural selection a stochastic process.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

What can I say?

This is the same old crap that I have been getting from you for months now. You dismiss my sources without explanation, which implies you haven't even read them. You also insist on dismissing my definition because you claim they don't convey meaning, which implies that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Will you please address my arguments?

Like you dismissed the peer reviewed paper you insincerely asked for in an OP which said Natural selection is NONRANDOM? Like you dismissed every peer reviewed article and every expert which said as much....which said that the way you were saying things was unclear and misleading and not explanatory? What is your argument again. I your argument has been addressed ad nauseum by many-- just like your supposed curiosity about discontinuity in the fossil record-- but all the illustrations and explaining and links and perusal of your arguments and requests lead you right back to the very same conclusion you have had since the beginning. You cannot learn. You are exactly like Behe. You dodge and weave and never ever say anything while elevating yourself above those who might teach you something and dissing those who call you on your dishonesty. Instead of just being honest or clear. You pretend to be interested in evolution and the way it's understood and the best way to describe it-- but you have no interest in anything of the sort unless you can twist it to say whatever it is you are trying to assert. Exactly like Behe. Exactly. Behe would concede the stuff that you concede. There is no difference... except that he's upfront about implying a designer... and you're oblique about it... you do it by describing evolution so poorly that a designer seems more likely than randomness. And perhaps it is. But it's NOT randomness that defines evolution. It's natural selection.... this has been told to you again and again and again. But you think Dawkins is dishonest and you are saying something useful.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

The probability may not be random but the probability distribution of individuals' survivals is what makes natural selection a stochastic process.

Yes... but, though a stochastic process is sometimes called a random process-- no one but mijo thinks the process itself is random. It has random inputs. The process is not random. But to Mijo-- if he can tie any part of the process to probabilities or the word random and thus conclude that it's random-- he will. As will Behe. Q. E. D. Why? Not because "it's more fruitful"-- but because it's more obfuscating. It makes evolution sound confusing and impossible-- Natural selection... a most decidedly nonrandom process unlocks the key to understanding evolution. And those who describe it well are the people who convey that understanding. That sure as hell aren't those running about to describe evolution in terms of randomness or probability or whatever blustery nothingness Mijo is pretending. Really. Behe can and does make similar arguments for his attachment to the term. Q. E. D.

[articulett]

No, Mijo... I'm not going to address your arguments... for the same reason I'm loathe to listen to Behe. You haven't said anything. You have no ability to learn or engage in dialogue on the topic. You imagine yourself more knowledgeable than you are. You use the attention to make yourself feel like Behe-- worthy of an audience. Find someone else who thinks you are as clear and explanatory as you imagine yourself to be. I find you and your techniques indestinguishible from Behe. And I consider Behe a very dishonest man.

[Wowbagger]

There are a couple of ways we can look at this issue. On one hand, there is The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal. Since we can not know everything in exact detail, beyond a specific level of precision, you could try to argue that everything is ultimately dependant on probablility.

However, above that level of detail, all the probabilities "smear out", so that science is able to make exacting predictions, afterall. For things that matter in our everyday lives, it is usually quite safe to "ignore" the Uncertainty Principal.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is one such thing. Its study does NOT ultimately rely on probability, in reality. However, since we can never know the values of every single variable that goes into it, (it is, in other words, an application of "chaos theory"), we have to make comprimises in our assessments.

We use probabilty when studying evolution, as one such comprimise. It is a tool we have to resort to using, since the math would be too difficult for even our greatest computers, otherwise.

For example, mutations do not really occur randomly. They all have causes: perhaps a photon from the sun bumped into an atom, in a certain way, to cause a molecule to form a different protein than it would otherwise, etc.
But, it is clearly beyond reason to track all those different things. Therefore, opting for probability is just something we gotta do to at least make some progress in this endeavor.

I choose to describe evolution without any sense of "random" as much as possible, in a futile attempt to try to make all this clear. Others use "random" in different ways, to describe different parts of evolution - most likely because it is just easier to say it that way, than to get into the whole "photon from the sun" rigamarole. But, I hope everyone now realizes that "random" is just not really part of the process Evolution takes, in reality.


My responses to Articulett, in particular, are coming next.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Mijo

In other words, if a system is non-deterministic (in the mathematical sense), it is random (in the mathematical sense), and if a system is non-random (in the mathematical sense), it is deterministic (in the mathematical sense).

And the mathematical sense is just about as confusing as it could possibly be to the layman. The layman is obliged to come to the conclusion either that absolutely everything is random, or that scientists are wrong in their current belief that there are random quantum events and it will eventually come to light that nothing whatsoever is random. Since it is quite unlikely that we will determine the cause of every event in the universe, that leaves the poor layman with a random universe.

We would do these folks a service by explaining what it is that appears to be random, what is deterministic, and what it means for something to be nonrandom with respect to something else. It would also help to explain that an event with two outcomes labeled as random does not mean the probabilities are necessarily 50/50.

I despair of ever understanding why this hair splitting is so important to you.

~~ Paul

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by articulett

Like you dismissed the peer reviewed paper you insincerely asked for in an OP which said Natural selection is NONRANDOM?

Hmmm...I remember that very same article saying:

Originally Posted by Ayala (2007)

This is how natural selection works: Individuals that have beneficial variations, that is, variations that improve their probability of survival and reproduction, leave more descendants than individuals of the same species that have less beneficial variations. The beneficial variations will consequently increase in frequency over the generations; less beneficial or harmful variations will be eliminated from the species. Eventually, all individuals of the species will have the beneficial features; new features will arise over eons of time.

Originally Posted by Ayala (2007)

Natural selection accounts for the ‘‘design’’ of organisms because adaptive variations tend to increase the probability of survival and reproduction of their carriers at the expense of maladaptive, or less adaptive, variations.

Originally Posted by Ayala (2007)

The fossil record shows that life has evolved in a haphazard fashion.

Seems that Ayala is a bit confused about what he means when he says evolution is non-random.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Seems that Ayala is a bit confused about what he means when he says evolution is non-random.

Haphazard does not = random.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by qayak

Haphazard does not = random.

What about the first two quotes?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by qayak

Haphazard does not = random.

Really?

You might want to check a thesaurus.

[joobz]

Ugh.

I still don't understand the whole point to this line of argument.
Evolution is random. So is diffusion, chemical reactions, radioactive decay,... who cares. that doesn't make it on any of them any less observable and real.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by joobz

Ugh.

I still don't understand the whole point to this line of argument.
Evolution is random. So is diffusion, chemical reactions, radioactive decay,... who cares. that doesn't make it on any of them any less observable and real.

That was sorta my point. The fact that evolution is random doesn't effect the fact that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor and that the immense adaptive radiation observed today occurred without the intervention a supernatural being.

Still think I'm a creationist or intelligent design proponent, articulett?

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

It just seems extremely dishonest to me to say that evolution by natural selection non-random but then describe it as operating on probabilities.

The process is really non-random, but we can not assess the whole process. We have to resort to using probability to study it. That is not dishonesty. That is admiting our limitations.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

The process is really non-random, but we can not assess the whole process. We have to resort to using probability to study it. That is not dishonesty. That is admiting our limitations.

How can you be so sure that it is non-random?

[Wowbagger]

I am not here to defend mijopaalmc's statements. But, I still think it is unfair to label him* as a "creationist". He might me some sort of other "woo", or maybe his understanding of the issues are limited at the moment; but there is nothing in his writings, here, that indicate he is a creationist.

(*apologies if I got her gender wrong.)

This was mijo's response to my question:

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Yes, I think that evolution is powerful enough to explain the diversity of living organisms today and how such diversity came to be without invoking the supernatural. I just think that probability theory is also powerful enough to explain evolution and that it may be more fruitful to try to explain evolution in terms of probability theory, because, while the processes that govern natural selection may in fact and in principle be deterministic, it may be impossible in practice to obtain the level of accuracy in measurement to reveal such determinism. Thus these processes will always appear random. Additionally, it is to the benefit of evolutionary biology to try to explain how evolution can occur even if it is random. It just seems extremely dishonest to me to say that evolution by natural selection non-random but then describe it as operating on probabilities.

His understanding of evolution might be flawed or incomplete or whatever. But, he does not seem to be resorting to any of the cheaper ideas that Behe would. He agrees that "evolution is powerful enough to explain the diversity of living organisms today and how such diversity came to be without invoking the supernatural." (Emphasis mine.)

Originally Posted by articulett

BTW, I think Behe would dodge that question by inferring that it's possible... that he's not saying it's impossible... but he's concerned that it's highly unlikely that everything could be explained by randomness.

I'll bet Behe would do just that.

Originally Posted by articulett

So Mijo, like Behe, will do something similar or ignore the question... he won't really say anything while inferring an answer that sounds like he's saying what you hope to hear. You can't pin a creationist down... they always have to have that wiggle room.

Ah, but that is not what Mijo did. He answered the question as I might have, several years ago, before I was able to float above all this "confusion". And, I was never a creationist.

Originally Posted by articulett

You want him not to be a creationist... but what if he is? How would you know? Do you think you could pin Behe down on anything? He claims not to be a creationist either.

We could pin Behe down for insisting that the very idea of an "Intelligent Designer" has a basis in science, when we know it could not possibly be tested by science.
I find no such way to "pin" mijo the same way.

Originally Posted by articulett

Are you worried about your ego... that you might have to apologize to me for seeing bad intentions on my part rather on the one with dishonest intent? Even you can be fooled.
I'm willing to examine all evidence to the contrary. I have been reading Mijo for some time. I'm not the only one who has reached this conclusion. His posts are all over this forum, and if the best you can come up with is what you've cut and pasted, then my opinion remains as is.

Honestly, mijo's identity is not important enough to me to waste time reading his other posts, in other threads. So, I could very well be wrong. If I am, and if it is not too much trouble, perhaps you can paste in a paragraph or two, of his, that makes it clear that he is, in fact, a creationist, and not someone who is merely limited in his full knowledge of evolution.

My ego and I parted ways years ago. I am perfectly willing to apologize to you, arti, if you can show me such a statement from him.

Originally Posted by articulett

Ask him why he keeps on insisting on calling evolution random when he knows that is Behe's obfuscating trick

[snipped for space]

Ask him to explain how the order comes from the randomness in evolution and how he'd explain the falsity of the tornado/747 analogy using his "evolution is random" stance?

I don't think he's using the word "random" the same way as Behe's trick.

Originally Posted by articulett

Listen, I'd shut up the moment he stops sounding like Behe bleating that evolution is random...
[snipped for space]

Maybe mijo is not perfect in his communication skills. He might be "bleating", perhaps, but nothing on this thread indicates he thinks there is the possability of a super-natural designer. His bleating seems to indicate that he does not understand why we study evolution using probability, and sometimes use the word "random", when we also claim there is no probability or randomness.

He has spotted what he thinks in a dishonest disconnect. I am trying to demonstrate how it is not so.

You do not have to address mijo's arguments, if you don't like him. But,
It is wasting people's time when you choose to spit accusations, instead of offering explanations.

Originally Posted by articulett

I'm begging you, mijo or anyone to show me the difference between what Mijo is saying and what Behe is saying.... or even to sum up what Mijo's point is... or Behe's.

My attempt to summarize Mijo: "Evolution is a fact, and no supernatural stuff is required. But, if evolution is not random, why do you guys keep using probability and stuff to study it?! That sounds dishonest to me!"

My attempt to summarize Behe: "Evolution has helped us understand life for a long time. But, I think it is time we put aside that old idea, for something more powerful. Since no one can ever figure out how all complex-looking life forms could have emerged from evolution, we should seriously consider the idea that there was an Intelligent Designer."

My attempt to summarize T'ai (just for kicks): "I have no opinions of my own. I'm just gonna parrot what other people say, that I find interesting."

Originally Posted by articulett

If it quacks like Behe--

Hence, mijo does not quite quack like Behe.

Superficially, the sounds might be similar, but that is merely the convergent behavior of one who might not be the best at getting their ideas across. In other words: Different evolutionary paths, but similar shaped results. Like a lagomorph and a mouse.

Now, I still love ya, arti. Don't get me wrong. But, this would not be the first time you called someone a "creationist", who wasn't:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...03#post3082603

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

How can you be so sure that it is non-random?

I try to explain that in post #96 of this thread, the one with the title "In Response to mijopaalmc and Others, regarding "Random" in Evolution".

As far as we can tell, within the limits of our current understanding of physics, "randomness" in reality, could only reasonably apply to sub-atomic ("quantum") levels, where the Uncertainty Principal comes into play.

Beyond that level, the probabilities "smear out", meaning they become unimportant, because the behavior of the whole will take on what is most probable in its collective of atoms, etc.

We can be reasonably sure Evolution is not random, because the process is irrelevant to the uncertainties that take place at the quantum level.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Really?

You might want to check a thesaurus.

Haphazard also means careless.

Random means that something lacks any definitive plan or prearranged order. Evolution does not fit the description. It has both a definative plan and a prearranged order, we just have difficulty seeing it. However, our inability to see doesn't make the process random.

As far as probability goes, that is just the easiest way for us to understand it. Chaos theory has pretty much become a part of all these types of processes because they are so complex and because, in some instances, we will never be able to know exatly what the prearranged conditions are/were or what the definitive plan is.

Weather is much the same. You can't tell me that weather is random. Well . . . you could but it wouldn't be true either.

[Wowbagger]

You know, it's like trying to predict the weather. No one ever says the weather is "random". We understand that every aspect of it has a cause. But, since there are just so many inputs we could possibly stuff into our computers, meteorologists must resort to probability, when trying to predict the weather, in a reasonable manner.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by qayak

Haphazard also means careless.

Random means that something lacks any definitive plan or prearranged order. Evolution does not fit the description. It has both a definative plan and a prearranged order, we just have difficulty seeing it.

Oooo, I would not describe it as such. There is no "plan" to it. A plan assumes a planner, much like design assumes designer.

Although you are correct to say our inability to predict everything doesn't mean that there aren't (at some level) simple steps that can be described deterministically. But this is true about everything we label as "random" a dice roll, a coin flip, or anything. As such, to minimize what random means in the sense of evolution, minimizes all "random" processes.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

You know, it's like trying to predict the weather. No one ever says the weather is "random". We understand that every aspect of it has a cause. But, since there are just so many inputs we could possibly stuff into our computers, meteorologists must resort to probability, when trying to predict the weather, in a reasonable manner.

Except the initial conditions (i.e., the phenotype) don't fully determine the outcome in evolution. In the case of the weather, if we were able to measure the initial conditions to an arbitrary degree of precision and the calculations be performed with arbitrary precision, we would be able to predict the weather with arbitrary accuracy.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Except the initial conditions (i.e., the phenotype) don't fully determine the outcome in evolution. In the case of the weather, if we were able to measure the initial conditions to an arbitrary degree of precision and the calculations be performed with arbitrary precision, we would be able to predict the weather with arbitrary accuracy.

Leaving aside sub-atomic weirdness, why can't the same be said of evolution?

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Except the initial conditions (i.e., the phenotype) don't fully determine the outcome in evolution. In the case of the weather, if we were able to measure the initial conditions to an arbitrary degree of precision and the calculations be performed with arbitrary precision, we would be able to predict the weather with arbitrary accuracy.

The phenotypes are not the only set of initial conditions. The fitness landscape is also another source of initial conditions.

If we were able to measure all of the initial conditions (phenotypes, landscapes, possibly others) with arbitrary degree of precision, we would be able to predict evolution with arbitrary accuracy.

[mijopaalmc]

Wowbagger-

Probably the most "damning" evidence of my supposed creationism is the first thread I authored on these boards: Fossil and Evolution. The question in the OP was about representations of evolution in the popular media and how they portray evolution as a continuous "morph" from one form to another. My confusion lay in the fact that if time were linearly scaled so that the entire life time of the Earth fit into one day, the time between two fossil forms (roughly 2 seconds) would make any animation look choppy. I wasn't questioning the basis of evolution, but articulett insisted that I was. I retracted my OP, explained that I wasn't an intelligent design propoent (which articulett apologized for calling me), and elaborated on my original confusion.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by joobz

Oooo, I would not describe it as such. There is no "plan" to it. A plan assumes a planner, much like design assumes designer.

No, a plan does not assume a planner. A plan is a detailed scheme, method, etc. for obtaining an objective. There is nothing that says consciousness must be involved and there is nothing that says it is ruled out.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by qayak

No, a plan does not assume a planner. A plan is a detailed scheme, method, etc. for obtaining an objective. There is nothing that says consciousness must be involved and there is nothing that says it is ruled out.

Feel free to use the word however you wish. It's just a sloppy.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Leaving aside sub-atomic weirdness, why can't the same be said of evolution?

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

The phenotypes are not the only set of initial conditions. The fitness landscape is also another source of initial conditions.

If we were able to measure all of the initial conditions (phenotypes, landscapes, possibly others) with arbitrary degree of precision, we would be able to predict evolution with arbitrary accuracy.

I guess it has to do with how I understand (or don't understand) the gene as the unit of selection.

Also, fitness is most often defined as the mean over a class of individual, giving inherently statistical properties.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

I guess it has to do with how I understand (or don't understand) the gene as the unit of selection.

Possibly. You might want to read The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, if you have not done so, already.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Also, fitness is most often defined as the mean over a class of individual, giving inherently statistical properties.

The "mean" is merely a shortcut we must resort to using, simply because placing all of the individual values is usually not possible with our limits of computation. (although sometimes it is possible, depending on what you're doing)

So, don't feel bad. This stuff is rather non-intuitive. It is often difficult to separate the "model" of science from the "reality" that it tries to describe.
I'm sure most of the posters here, including me, have had the same problem.

[articulett]

The way most biologists explain evolution is random (more or less) mutation coupled with non-random selection over time.

No one who teaches or conveys understanding about evolution to others emphasizes the randomness over the way natural selection over time selects from the randomness to achieve what seems to be design. No biologist refers to natural selection as random--because its not... and it's misleading to say it is. A biologist would say the mutation was random... but the fact that it was incorporated widely in the genome was not. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274/ Even the non-experts at MSNBC describe natural selection and how evolution works better than Behe or Mijo or Tai'. All of them sound like they think they know more than those they might actually learn from.

As Dawkins reiterates --the powerful explanatory of Darwins theory was natural selection-- not randomness.

Yes, Mijo-- I am certain of what you are. You are one of those people who puts down others who might teach you something about evolution while pretending to understand more than you do. You are one of those people like Behe who is obsessed with characterizing evolution as random no matter how unclear that might be or how many peer reviewed papers say that natural selection is NOT random. Any one who thinks that evolutionary biologists think life came about randomly, most certainly do not understand evolution nor what biologists actually think nor natural selection nor have they read and understood the Selfish Gene. The process of evolution contains randomness... the results are most certainly NOT random. They are the result of preferentially selected mutations and the replicators they code for.

You are one of those people who never actually says anything... who pretends to be curious about a topic, but never actually shows any interest in having the questions you ask answered. They are all smarmy rhetorical questions designed to infer some knowledge on your part or to dis evolution or dawkins or someone else who is critical of religion. It's all you ever do or say in every post. You pretend to be curious or knowledgeable or insightful-- But you never ever say anything. You are just like Behe-- you criticize those who know more than you while pretending to be an expert on something you cannot convey coherently. Your blather is indistinguishable from Behe's-- as is your obsessional need to declare evolution random.

Feel free to have simulating discussions with those who want to play your game. Until you can convey how complexity and design comes from the randomness you have an explanation exactly as "fruitful" as Behe's-- and indistinguishable from the creationists canard.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by qayak

Why? Probability of survival does not = Random.

Mijo defines random as "anything having to do with probabilities" he determines that a process is random if it contains anything random in it. Therefore, per his self selected definition and semantic vagaries evolution IS random however vague and misleading that may be. And nothing can and will change that fact. In his head this is an academically rigorous and "fruitful" definition despite the fact that no peer reviewed papers are refer to natural selection as random and none are as vague as him and most don't even say what he imagines they are saying. And if his definition is so fruitful and Dawkins so dishonest, you'd think they'd be using his definition (which is indistinguishable from Behe's) rather than Dawkins and Darwin to convey understanding. But, you know, Mijo knows better than everyone else-- so he keeps telling us.