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

[CFLarsen]

But evolution cannot be predicted exactly.

 

[Vorticity]

I guess you've never played card games or dice.

I'm not sure I follow you.

Are you suggesting that these games are not essentially random? Remember, just because a game is random doesn't have to mean that each player has the same probability of winning. Just because skill will confer upon a player a much higher probability of winning doesn't mean that the game is non-random.

In fact, in the games you mention above, knowledge of the various probabilities associated with the inherent randomness of the game is often a large component of what constitues skill.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Are you suggesting that these games are not essentially random?

Exactly, they utilize randomness but the rules aren't random and how the player bets isn't random, how the winner is determined is also not random.

The games are not random, they only utilize randomness.

 

[Vorticity]

But evolution cannot be predicted exactly.

Now I'm getting confused. Perhaps we're having some kind of jargon barrier.

Yes, evolution cannot be predicted exactly. That is precisely my point.

If it cannot be predicted exactly given a precise description of the current state and history of the system, then it is random. That's what random is. If it could be so predicted, then it would be deterministic. Deterministic is the opposite of random.

I think you are agreeing with me without knowing it.

 

[Vorticity]

Exactly, they utilize randomness but the rules aren't random and how the player bets isn't random, how the winner is determined is also not random.

The games are not random, they only utilize randomness.

Yes, but any given instance of the game itself is a random process. How the winner is determined is "not random" in the sense that the rules are very clear on what has to happen for someone to become the winner. But can you say before the game who will win? Definitely not. You can't say that without knowing what cards will be dealt to each player, which is assumed to be random. If the outcome (i.e. who wins) cannot be predicted with certainty ahead of time, then it is a random variable. This is very simple.

Even a very skilled player will lose from time to time, because their skill only confers upon them a greater probability of winning, and not a certitude of winning.

Evolution is random in much the same way. This is not just some technical nitpick. The statement that evolution is random (or stochastic) follows unambiguously from the definition of what it means to be random. To deny that evolution is random is to deny something very central to its nature.

Keep in mind that saying "evolution is random" in no way undermines the validity of the concept of evolution by natural selection. That is a creationist strawman.

 

[thaiboxerken]

When I drive to work, it's just random chance that I get there because there are plenty of random factors that could stop me from getting to my destination. Is this your position?

 

[CFLarsen]

Now I'm getting confused. Perhaps we're having some kind of jargon barrier.

Yes, evolution cannot be predicted exactly. That is precisely my point.

If it cannot be predicted exactly given a precise description of the current state and history of the system, then it is random. That's what random is. If it could be so predicted, then it would be deterministic. Deterministic is the opposite of random.

I think you are agreeing with me without knowing it.

Nope. I know I am disagreeing with you.

Evolution isn't random, in the sense that there aren't limitations to what the next generation will be like. Two furry polar bears can get a polar bear with slightly longer fur - but two furry polar bears won't get a slug.

Similarly, evolution isn't deterministic, in the sense that you can predict exactly what the offspring will be like. You have all sorts of influences: Environment, mutated genes, you name it.

 

[Vorticity]

When I drive to work, it's just random chance that I get there because there are plenty of random factors that could stop me from getting to my destination. Is this your position?

Of course, is there any other way of looking at it?

One thing that catches my eye: Your use of the phrase "it's just random chance that I get there" makes it sound like you think that "random" must mean that you have only a 50% chance of getting there, or perhaps that you think it means that you have just as much chance of ending up anywhere as at work.

This is not what "random" necessarily means. If we assume that there are random factors at play that make your probability of getting to work anything less than 1, then whether or not you make it to work is indeed a random event. Even if the probability of you getting to work was 99.999%, it's still random.

This is not just "my position". This is what the word "random" means to anyone who studies it.

 

[Vorticity]

Evolution isn't random, in the sense that there aren't limitations to what the next generation will be like.

But this isn't what random means. "Random" does not mean "without limits". If that were the case, then a random variable uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 would be "non-random" simply because its range of possible values is limited.

No one uses the word "random" that way.

Similarly, evolution isn't deterministic, in the sense that you can predict exactly what the offspring will be like. You have all sorts of influences: Environment, mutated genes, you name it.

Yes, I agree. And these influences (particularly the mutations) are "random".

Look, this is very simple: Any process that is influenced by random events in such a way that its future state cannot be predicted precisely in advance is random. That is what the word means.

I know that arguments from authority don't count for much around here, but please, please, please take my word on this definition. The study of random processes is what I do for a living. I don't know what else I can say to convince you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Essentially, everything is random according to your definition of what "random" is. You've basically made the term "random" meaningless.

 

[Vorticity]

Essentially, everything is random according to your definition of what "random" is.

In principle, yes.

And by the way, this is not "my" definition. This is the standard definition.

You've basically made the term "random" meaningless.

Not at all. Just because everything is in principle "random" does not in any way mean that the term is without meaning. Many, many processes can be predicted using deterministic models with far, far more accuracy than we can possibly measure. It makes sense in these cases to speak of these processes as "deterministic", since it is beyond our ability to tell otherwise.

So, in practice, there is a kind of subjective "degree of randomness" that a process must have in order for it to be utilitarian to refer to it as "random", even if all processes are random according to the technical definition of the word. In other words, we can make a conceptual distinction between the two concepts which is very useful in practice, in much the same way that we can make a distinction between "circles" and "squares", even though no absolutely perfect circles or squares may exist in real life.

As for your drive to work, I think it does make sense to refer to it as random. Take car accidents, for example. There are good statistics available on the incidence of such accidents per car per trip. We can measure the probabilities involved, and they are not negligibly small. Assuming you have the same probability as anyone else of getting into an accident, then your successful arrival at work is indeed the result of random chance.

I can think of 2 or 3 times in the last year when I started driving to work and for whatever reason ended up not getting there that day. So - if we stipulate that the factors that kept me from getting there are random - then my probability of not getting to work each day is on the order of 1 in 100. To me, this is non-negligible.

And as for evolution, It seems clear to me that it is significantly more random than whether or not you get to work safely. Walter Wayne made a good point in the other thread:

A question for the "non-randomites". Do you think that the rise of humanity was inevitable, given the conditions when life first crawled onto land?

Again, to re-re-re-iterate: Saying that "evolution is random" is in no way a criticism of evolutionary theory.

 

[CFLarsen]

But this isn't what random means. "Random" does not mean "without limits". If that were the case, then a random variable uniformly distributed between 0 and 1 would be "non-random" simply because its range of possible values is limited.

No one uses the word "random" that way.

That's exactly it: Some people do use the word "random" that way, especially when it comes to evolution.

Namely Creationists.

Capiche?

 

[Vorticity]

That's exactly it: Some people do use the word "random" that way, especially when it comes to evolution.

Namely Creationists.

Capiche?

Yes, I understand that perfectly, and have from the beginning. When I said "nobody uses the word 'random' that way", I meant nobody uses the word random techinically with that meaning.

So I understand why Dawkins (or whoever) might be tempted to insist that evolution is not random. But I think this is a mistake akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Evolution is certainly random by the technical definition* ,though not by the common definition.

*Which I think of as the 'real' definition, since it's my job.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In principle, yes.

And by the way, this is not "my" definition. This is the standard definition.

You're using the mathematical/statistical definition, not the layman's definition. When talking to lay people, I tend to use layman's definition.

Not at all. Just because everything is in principle "random" does not in any way mean that the term is without meaning.

In this context, it renders the word to have no value. To say evolution is a random process is equivalent to saying that building a plane is a random process as well because there are always random elements.

Again, to re-re-re-iterate: Saying that "evolution is random" is in no way a criticism of evolutionary theory.

The way you use the term, it might not be. The way T'ai Chi uses it IS definitely a criticism and meant to be a criticism.

 

[Vorticity]

You're using the mathematical/statistical definition,

Of course. That's what this thread is about.

not the layman's definition. When talking to lay people, I tend to use layman's definition.

The technical definition of 'random' is really the only one that I find coherent. Despite what was posted above, I have only a murky understanding of what is supposed to be meant by the layman's definition of random.

If you were using the layman's definition of 'random', what would the phrase "evolution is random" mean to you?

In this context, it renders the word to have no value.

Oh, I think not. I've explained this above.

It is in the nature of science to be reductionist, and to work with idealized models. One very common idealized model is that of a purely deterministic system. Such systems may not truly exist in reality, but the concept is of immeasurable value in describing an endless array of physical systems. Thus, the term 'deterministic' has value. As a consequence, the term 'random' - as the antithesis of deterministic - also has value.

In practice, one would call random that which is demonstrably and measurably non-deterministic. Naturally, this would depend on context.

To say evolution is a random process is equivalent to saying that building a plane is a random process as well because there are always random elements.

Well, there are degrees.

I think that evolution is much more deserving of the label "random" than the process of building a plane. In building a plane, there is a particular specific form and objective that the process is heading towards. In evolution this is the case only in the sense that populations tend to seek out greater adaptation to their environment. Given a particular starting point, there may be many different paths a population can take to achieve such adaptation. Consider the statement of Walter Wayne that I quoted a few posts up.

The way you use the term, it might not be.

I certainly isn't, otherwise many evolutionary biologists would be guilty of condemning their own field. Note that models of evolution as random processes of various types (e.g. in simulations) are ubiquitous.

The way T'ai Chi uses it IS definitely a criticism and meant to be a criticism.

There seems to be ample circumstancial evidence from around this forum that T'ai Chi is some kind of creationist, or at least that he doesn't accept evolutionary theory. In light of this, his efforts to establish evolution as random may be the precursor to some kind of rhetorical 'gotcha' yet to be revealed.

Nevertheless, in the context of this thread his definition and my definition seems to be one and the same. And according to my definition, it's not a criticism.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I guess you've never played card games or dice.

Are you saying the outcomes of what cards come up is not random, and the outcomes of die throws are not random?

You must win casino jackpots all the time then...

In fact, what goes on in casinos is perhaps the longest running demonstration of stochastic processes in action... besides evolution that is.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There seems to be ample circumstancial evidence from around this forum that T'ai Chi is some kind of creationist, or at least that he doesn't accept evolutionary theory. In light of this, his efforts to establish evolution as random may be the precursor to some kind of rhetorical 'gotcha' yet to be revealed.

Since when is it about the person rather than the argument being presented?

I'd like to point out that this 'evidence' is like one, maybe two, people just repeating their biases against me ad nauseum for whooping them in arguments.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Of course. That's what this thread is about.

No, it's not. It's about T'ai Chi's strawman of evolution.

If you were using the layman's definition of 'random', what would the phrase "evolution is random" mean to you?

It would mean that the process is entirely random, that all life and life-forms are due to chance alone.

There seems to be ample circumstancial evidence from around this forum that T'ai Chi is some kind of creationist, or at least that he doesn't accept evolutionary theory. In light of this, his efforts to establish evolution as random may be the precursor to some kind of rhetorical 'gotcha' yet to be revealed.

He is a creationist and often cites Discovery Institute articles to "poke holes" in evolution.

Nevertheless, in the context of this thread his definition and my definition seems to be one and the same. And according to my definition, it's not a criticism.

No, your definition is definitely not the same as his. Tai Chi wants to build a strawman charicature of evolution and then tear it down.

 

[Civilized Worm]

He's not a creationist, he's "just asking questions".

 

[Walter Wayne]

Are you claiming that natural selection is not the governing method of evolution?

But there is chance in selection itself. If we determined the winner of a game by roll of a die: on a 5 or 6 I win, on any other result you win. We have a governing process to determining a winner. But would a layman say it wasn't random even if the odds do favour one participant more than the other?

Walt