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

[T'ai Chi]

Split from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80664

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

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

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

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

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

 

[Civilized Worm]

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

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

As the man himself put it:

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

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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

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

 

[Freddy]

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

 

[ZouPrime]

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

 

[Freddy]

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

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

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

Unless you disagree with both

1) evolution can be modelled mathematically

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

that is.

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

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

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

 

[ZouPrime]

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

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

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

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

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

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

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

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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

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

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

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

Quoted for Tai'Chi to read and fear.

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

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

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

 

[JC Fla]

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

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

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

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

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

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

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

 

[joobz]

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



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

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

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

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

 

[JC Fla]

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

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

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

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

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

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

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