What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[CapelDodger]

The problem is that many people including the proponents of evolution (e.g., Dawkins and articlett) don't have a very good idea that predictable results can arise from random processes.

They can't grasp the Drunkard's Walk principle? The only result that Dawkins would predict is that organisms that breed do not yet represent an evolutionary dead-end. That's not a prediction that would qualifiy for the JREF Challenge.

Climbing Mount Improbable addresses exactly that point. Most life - by organism - exists on the very lowest slopes of that mountain. That's predictable. The details of complex life are far less predictable, about the best you can say is that there will be some. Up in the realm where mass extinctions can result from random events. It's a tiny proportion of life but since we're part of it we pay it a lot of unmerited attention.

 

[articulett]

But natural selection, at its most fundamental, is not non-random. No matter how you look at it, natural selection is about taking a sample of a population. Fitter individuals are more likely to end up in the sample and therefore pass on their genes to the next generation than they would be if they were picked at random form the population whereas less fit individuals are less likely to end up in the sample and therefore pass on their genes to the next generation than they would be if they were picked at random form the population.

A sample though is an inherently statistical entity and therefore subject to random fluctuations by its very nature. The fluctuations are accentuated when the population is especially small and decrease as the population increases. Therefore, at sufficiently high population sizes, the effects of random fluctuations on selection are negligible and the population can be said to behave deterministically.

Fitter than what? Fitter according to who? Fitter in what way? Think of a chain letter or a computer virus or a religion--fitter just means that it is successful in getting copied--at sticking around--is a candidate for modification or adding by increments in future incarnations...

This thread keeps going as long as it is "fit"--as long as it generates responses--even though it might be very random as to who stumbles across these pages and reads something and feels like responding...The information that in it that keeps it going is part of the fitness but so are the people who do and don't see it and do and don't respond. But the thread itself does not evolve randomly. The randomness in who reads and responds does not make the conversation "random" or "stochastic"...even though people either "do" or "don't" respond. The resulting and evolving thread has non-random aspects JUST AS EVOLVING LIFE DOES. Having random components does not make a process random. The fact that it is a process implies a connection or a series which negates randomness by some definitions (not connected to the past or future).

You could say that this thread, "at its most fundamental, is not non-random."
(your words) and it would be equally meaningful as saying (as you did) "natural selection, at its most fundamental, is not non-random. I don't know what the hell this thread is at it's most fundamental level (or what that even means when applied to this thread or natural selection)...but I don't think randomness or lack thereof is essential to the understanding of the evolution of this thread in any way. Similarly, it sure isn't useful for describing natural selection.

Also, just because something is "not nonrandom" (your words) does not mean that it IS random...or "stochastic"...or that it's useful or clarifying in any way to describe a process with such terminology.

 

[articulett]

double post

 

[articulett]

I've said this before, articulett, but I'll limp up and try once more.

From the point of view of understanding the beauty of the process, your arguments have merit. However, from the point of view of someone with a physical science or engineering background, the simple question, "where do new characteristics come from," is answered simply, "from random mutation." Idiot creationists trying to trump that up into evilution being "random" get anything from a blank stare ("does this idiot really not know that (transistors/steam engines/air-fuel combustion/name some piece of complicated engineering) is based on randomness?") to being called out as not believing in said piece of complicated engineering because they're too stupid to know what "random" means.

I held this point of view until Dawkins showed me better, for which I am in his debt; but it made no difference to my acceptance of evolution as the overwhelmingly most likely explanation of the biological complexity of our world, and no difference to my opinion that that complexity has arisen due to the random nature of mutations. That such complexity has structure is a whole other argument, from the perspective of a physical sciences or engineering major. So pardon me, but I think you've missed just as much of mijo's point of view as he has missed of yours.

Maybe so, but it just seems to me that he's saying this: "Natural selection, at its most fundamental, is not non-random" over and over. Whether an argument can be made for this being "true" is not as relevant as to whether it says anything about natural selection and the incremental nature that makes many biologist see the selective part of natural selection "the opposite of chance". Randomness is the easy part to understand...selective forces building complexity through time is a little harder. If the question was "what is the evidence for the evolution of this thread being non-random", then no information would be added by saying: "this thread, at its most fundamental, is not non-random." Yeah we could talk about all the random components that go into a thread...but that does tell how it evolved nor does it tell about the non-random aspects asked for in the question nor does it say anything about the incremental but unpredictable nature of the thread. It says nothing. To say that random inputs by people happening upon this thread made the thread itself random or "stochastic" wouldn't do anything to show how this thread is evolving through time.

I understand the random aspects of evolution just fine. Most people do actually. It's the HOW complexity evolves in evolution that Mijo doesn't seem to grasp--nor the why that Dawkins et. al. would call natural selection the "opposite" of chance. I am not arguing that a case couldn't be made for calling evolution random...and I understand what is meant to say we are here by random chance. But to the uninformed, that seems impossible...until they understand natural selection. Until a person understands natural selection, an "intelligent designer" looks as plausible as "random chance" for creating complexity from randomess--afterwards, evolution wins by a longshot and unlocks the understanding of all kinds of complexity. Mere humans can understand that which was left to the divine to explain before! The random aspects of evolution are not relevant to understanding the incremental ratcheting of genomes through time. I understand how complexity comes from randomness; I just cannot tell if mijo does. Can you?

Ambiguous terminology and double negatives ("not non-random") doesn't help anyone understand the non-random aspects of evolution or anything else as far as I can tell. Random is the "easy" part of the equation. How it builds complexity (the non-random parts) is a little trickier...the stickiness...the assembly process...

It's not really that mijo is "wrong". He just isn't saying anything. And he is obfuscating understanding in the exact way Behe does...in the exact way mentioned at talk origins...he is using an identical mischaracaterization (or perhaps simplification) which Behe and the wedge strategy specifically endorse for creating a lack of understanding. Everything he says boils down to: "there is no evidence for evolution being non random" or "I'm not convinced that evolution is non-random" or "scientists don't know enough to say whether evolution is or is not random". To me, that's about on par with what Behe says. It's more about not understanding than conveying understanding. I can tell your argument from a creationist argument by your attempts to clarify and find common understanding...and your use of terms like "stickiness" when talking about building complexity. But I can't tell Mijo from Behe. Can you? I quoted him (Behe) a few pages back. It's just tons of words where it all boils down to declarations that he has a "rigorous understanding of evolution" that apparently can't be conveyed to any scientists and has something to do with randomness.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What exactly is your argument, articulett?

Are you saying that evolution is not random because individual with traits that benefit their survival and reproduction in a given environment produce more offspring and the individual that have traits that don't benefit their survival in the same environment produce less offspring?

 

[Walter Wayne]

...selective forces building complexity through time is a little harder.

You keep on repeating this, even though it is false. It is the random mutations that builds complexity, not the selective forces. The "selective forces" do not create build complexity. They cull, they select from what is already there in a biased manner.

As long as you keep on repeating this idea that "selection builds complexity" I find it hard to believe that you understand the evolution.

Walt

 

[articulett]

You keep on repeating this, even though it is false. It is the random mutations that builds complexity, not the selective forces. The "selective forces" do not create build complexity. They cull, they select from what is already there in a biased manner.

As long as you keep on repeating this idea that "selection builds complexity" I find it hard to believe that you understand the evolution.

Walt

Just as the sieve builds the pile of whatever it is that passes through the sieve, so too, does natural selection "build" the complexity and variety of all the forms that result from it passing successive "elimination rounds". The genomes that stay in the game are entirely dependent on natural selection. At any moment they can be taken out of the game--and the more copies they make of themselves the more likely pieces of them will survive and evolve in future vectors. When you prune a tree, the resulting shape is a result of that pruning and subsequent growth upon what is left. Maybe "shape" is a better word then "build"...or amassing and accruing the incremental changes.

And I don't really care if you think I understand evolution. I care if my students can convey it better than you.

 

[articulett]

What exactly is your argument, articulett?

Are you saying that evolution is not random because individual with traits that benefit their survival and reproduction in a given environment produce more offspring and the individual that have traits that don't benefit their survival in the same environment produce less offspring?

It's not an argument. This was supposed to be a thread about understanding the "non random" aspects of evolution, remember? We already agree that the facts are the same no matter how it's explained. I'm saying that your way of explaining it does not answer your question nor does it do justice to natural selection. It confuses more than it clarifies. The important part of natural selection is not random elements that may impact it . It's the way it sifts and thus shapes what comes next.

 

[Schneibster]

See, articulett, I think the problem goes one deeper; I think most people don't understand "random," and I think all sorts of science would be more accessible to them if they did. Mijo, would you agree with that assessment?

 

[Meadmaker]

sorry but i must say this seems inaccurate, natural selection is not neccessarily biased towards anything.
Randomly mutated organisms filter through the non-random seive of natural selection. Those that reproduce simply pass through the sieve. The seive does not appear have a randomness towards any particular individual, as it acts on all the individuals passing through it, one by one, individually...... It is the individuals that randomly can or cannot pass through it. If anything , I would suggest that natural selection (the ultimate sieve of life!) has to be non-random, otherwise organised complexity would probably unlikely to arise, at all possibly.


There may be a "philosophy of science", but philosophy is not a science............and genetic drift is not from a pressure that natural selection applies.

It's surely the result of non-random selective process that results in indidvuals carrying traits that ensured their survival. The individuals that were not so equipped were also non-randomly removed from the gene pool.

Welcome, biomorph. (I assume you're a fan of The Blind Watchmaker, but that's just an inference from your chosen moniker. FWIW, I do make mead, but haven't lately.)

Since you haven't read the last 24 pages, I'll give a brief summary. (For your sake, I hope you haven't read them.) Also, since I don't know your background, I'm going to include a brief mathematics (actually vocabulary) lesson. This may be totally redundant to you. If so, I apologize. First, the math.

If you ever take a college level course in probability, you will learn (or have learned) a very specific definition of "random". A random variable is one whose value is described by a probability density function. A probability density function is a function which is everywhere greater than equal to 0, and whose integral over all values is 1. There's a corresponding definition for discrete systems.

That's a fancy way of saying that the probability density function gives the probability that a variable will take on a given value (for discrete systems) or be found within a given interval (for continuous systems). There's also something called a probability distribution function. That's the integral (or sum for discrete systems) of the density function. The probability that a variable will have a value <= X is given by F(X), where X is the probability distribution function of X.

If something can be described by a probability density function, it's random. By definition. That's not the only definition of random, but it's the one I learned in math class. A random process is one whose mathematical model includes random variables.

Over in another thread, I was giving my review of "The God Delusion", and I noted that Dawkins was absolutely adamant that evolution is not random and that it does not create things "by chance". I objected, saying that many things about evolution, indeed everything about evolution, could be described by probability density functions and that we were, in fact, here by chance, and that Dawkins shouldn't object.

Someone found that a worthy topic of discussion, and started a thread about it. In that thread, mijo hinted that he might agree with my viewpoint, at which point a knucklehead reached the conclusion that mijo didn't understand science. A brief conversation ensued, and then mijo started this thread.

Mijo's basic stance has been, right from the beginning, and completely unwavering, that almost every interesting aspect of evolution could be described by probability distribution functions, it was, by definition, random. Q.E.D. Evolution is random. (Mijo has changed terms to "stochastic", which is a synonym for random, but less confusing, because it is only synonymous with one of the many definitions of random, which is the one that I learned in math class. He hasn't changed his position, just the term used.)

In case you doubt that, let's go back to your sieve. Is it a perfect seive? I think not. I think the holes in the seive are varying sizes. By that, I mean that one organism might be selected (i.e. not killed before breeding) while an identical one, or even a less fit one, might breed. Certain traits in an organism might make it more likely to pass on its genes, but it is impossible to examine the traits of an organism and say that it will or will not pass on its genes. Your seive will let some organisms of one "size" through while blocking others. Indeed, I would challenge anyone to come up with a mathematical model of anything significant in evolutionary theory that did not include random variables. If you can find one, I'll guarantee you that it would be improved, though the math might be more difficult, by inclusion of such variables.

It's really as simple as that, or it could be, but if it were that simple we would have stopped on page 2. What makes it more complicated?

Well, for one thing, there's considerable debate over the usefulness of the description of evolution as a random process. Yes, it is a random process, but does that help us learn anything about it? I think it could, but it depends on exactly what aspect you are studying. Certainly, if giving a top level overview of the process to introductory students, you wouldn't want to emphasize it. If, on the other hand, you are predicting the distribution of allele frequencies, your answers will be more accurate and complete if you include random variables. This includes in the selection process, because a tree might have a feature that makes it fire resistant, and forest fires don't happen with uniform frequency. Your estimates will be inaccurate if you don't include a stochastic component.

Despite this rather obvious aspect of evolution, it seems some people have very strong feelings about that word when applied to evolution. In particular, some have said that anyone who describes evolution as random is probably a creationist. Why they have such strong feelings, I don't know, although I have made some speculations in the past. This post is already quite long, so I'll end it here with one final comment. The feelings that other people have about this word are just that. They are feelings. Emotional reactions. At least, that's my opinion.

 

[mijopaalmc]

See, articulett, I think the problem goes one deeper; I think most people don't understand "random," and I think all sorts of science would be more accessible to them if they did. Mijo, would you agree with that assessment?

Short answer: yes.

I will elaborate more later.

 

[articulett]

See, articulett, I think the problem goes one deeper; I think most people don't understand "random," and I think all sorts of science would be more accessible to them if they did. Mijo, would you agree with that assessment?

Mijo posted 5 differing definitions of random from statistics books. I don't think there is an agreed upon meaning for random...hence the ambiguity. To the layperson, it means willy-nilly... I agree that people need to learn about randomness and how they can be fooled by it. But I think it's more important to understand the basics of evolution then to go into all the intricacies regarding various meanings of randomness. Remember, even mutations are not truly random in the strictest sense of the word. Until or unless there is an agreed upon definition, it's just not informative to use the word or synonyms thereof...especially when trying to understand the "non-random" aspects of evolution...or the way natural selection acts as a force upon the randomness to bring changes to a species.

If this was a thread about defining randomness and how it can be useful for understanding evolution or aspects thereof--then such an argument would make sense. But this thread was supposedly a query about the non-random aspects of evolution--it is almost identical to a known creationist strawman, and the Talk Origins answer is understandable to most people. The Talk Origins answer said that those who sum up evolution with such terminology, clearly don't understand natural selection. And I agree. Or if they do understand it, they sure aren't conveying that understanding very well.

Who doesn't understand the random aspects of evolution? Most people could give a pretty good description as to what that means...many have. Natural selection, may have random components but, it's misleading if not incorrect to call the process itself random (or stochastic) unless you are playing with words and don't care whether you are communicating anything of value or are talking to physicists who already understand natural selection. Natural selection is the "de-randomizer"...the sieve...the force...that brings "order" to the randomness via bottom up increments.

Do you agree with Meadmaker and Mijo that there is no evidence for evolution being non-random? Do you think that is an informative statement in any way?
Do you think that coveys anything about natural selection and the incremental ratcheting of genomic complexity? I think I've made it plenty clear that I understand the random aspects or why one could consider it random (purposeless)--but mijo does not understand natural selection...or at least not how his summation of the process makes it sure seem like this is the case.

 

[Schneibster]

Interested on your take on Meadmaker's post too, mijo. Nice post, BTW, MM- and that's why I say most people don't understand "random." I might put the occasional biologist in that camp, too.

 

[articulett]

This is Behe (a known intelligent design proponent) in his new book:

"the idea of natural selection says just that the more fit organisms of a species will replace the progeny of the less fit".

And here is the general scientific consensus of that explanation and the way he uses words to say nothing and obfuscate understanding.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/05/behes_dreadful_new_book_a_revi_1.php
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123

This sort of word play that doesn't say anything is just old news amongst those who deal with creationists. I'd do my damndest never to sound like one, because their goal is to confuse understanding of evolution rather than to clarify the simplicity of natural selection.

The reviewers closing remark on Behe: But it's typical: he seems to be incapable of actually really thinking about an argument in any way deeper than asking "Does this agree with my conclusion?"; and even then, he doesn't seem capable of recognizing when an argument doesn't support his conclusion.

 

[articulett]

Interested on your take on Meadmaker's post too, mijo. Nice post, BTW, MM- and that's why I say most people don't understand "random." I might put the occasional biologist in that camp, too.

You might want to put Mijo in that camp too: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2676486&postcount=836

Apparently it's an ambiguous term.

I suspect there are more non-biologists who are certain they understand natural selection, who do not.

But this thread wasn't about the ways people can define random or the ways various sciences do or even the way lay people do. It was about the "non-random" aspects of evolution. I suppose in that case, an agreed upon definition would help. But so far there has been no definition that can meaningfully be applied so that one might distinguish non-random aspects of evolution from the random components of mutation. I believe the non random process mentioned was weather prediction. The stochastic example involved the stock market. The conclusion therefore is that natural is somehow more like the stock market (stochastic) then it is like weather forecasting (which mijo says is deterministic)...and therefore evolution is "not non-random". I can't imagine anyone finding that a satisfying or useful answer to the question in the OP, nor can I imagine anyone having anything about evolution or randomness clarified by such commentary.

 

[Schneibster]

Do you agree with Meadmaker and Mijo that there is no evidence for evolution being non-random? Do you think that is an informative statement in any way?

First, I'm not even sure I agree with that characterization. Second, as an engineer, a science watcher with a great deal of interest and enough training to at least comprehend what the math is trying to tell me, and a computer scientist, I am absolutely the last person you want guessing at what most people without the training and curiosity I have think "random" means. The way I define "random," I have absolutely no problem thinking of evolution as random. For example, the random collisions of molecules in a gas lead to the highly orderly Second Law of Thermodynamics. For another example, the random interactions of the elementary particles lead to the highly orderly physics of Newton. So I find absolutely no contradiction in noting that the genes expressed are random, and the environment is partly random and partly determined by the expression of those genes, and that this leads to the highly orderly "Law of Evolution by Natural Selection." And yes, I see it as a Law; it has a solid mathematical (albeit statistical) proof, and it has never been seen to be violated. In physics, that's called a "Law."

In fact, I see the same beauty in that as I see in chemistry, or electronics, or computer programming, or cognitive studies, or thermodynamics: the beauty of orderly behavior emerging from apparent chaos. This seems to me to be a general phenomenon in all our studies of the world around us; what seems at first chaotic turns out to have rules that are rigidly followed, which emerge smoothly and naturally from the math that describes that chaos.

On the other hand, with your greater knowledge of how most people who don't have training in the sciences might look at the term "random," you might quite rightly point out that what I've said is meaningless to such people. I simply can't say. But to me, the statement that "evolution is random" means a whole lot of things that, from your argument, either it doesn't mean to you, or that you don't believe it means to most people. So you might consider the possibility that for both MM and Mijo, it might mean those things too- or at least that their understanding of what "random" means may have as little to do with what you're talking about (whether you believe it, or are merely pointing out it's what most people believe) as mine does.

So to the extent that it describes what I've been talking about here, yes, I think evolution is random, and yes, I think that is a valuable and informative statement to make provided the person you're talking to understands what "random" means. It can open doors in a person's mind that allow them to understand evolution as one of a range of phenomena that appear random when individual events are studied, but yield orderly results over large numbers of events. The source of this order, I think, is what's most interesting and beautiful, and that's the point I think you're trying to make; certainly, it's the point I took away from Dawkins. But I think you might have missed that it's this association with a general range of phenomena that I find the most compelling argument in evolution's favor. And if you so associate it, you've absolutely guaranteed that every physical scientist or engineer with the slightest understanding of how things generally work is going to find that same compelling argument at the core of it.

What irks me most about creationists isn't finding them among the ranks of common people. I hate to say it, it's elitist and I find that distasteful, but the fact of the matter is that most people simply don't understand how math works. They therefore completely misunderstand science, and being presented with comfortable socially acceptable ways of dealing with what they do not understand, they simply accept them. One of those ways is religion, and by its very nature it encourages them not to think about the explanations it provides; and this is not a problem for them because they are incapable of fully comprehending the questions they ought to be asking, and would not be happy if they were capable of it. What bothers me is some fool geologist or chemist or computer scientist telling be s/he doesn't "believe in" evolution. That's just plain dumb, since such people have the capacity to know better. And I see this direction of approach as a proper one, which will force such people to face up to precisely what it is they're denying, and realize that to do so is to deny the very science and technology they themselves work with every day of their working lives.

My prediction of the success rate? Better than anything else going, but not all that good. But that's got nothing to do with the technique- it's the nature of the beast. You're asking people to question things that make them very uncomfortable to consider. Not usually a real great strategery.

Do you think that coveys anything about natural selection and the incremental ratcheting of genomic complexity? I think I've made it plenty clear that I understand the random aspects or why one could consider it random (purposeless)--but mijo does not understand natural selection...or at least not how his summation of the process makes it sure seem like this is the case.

I've seen indications in things I've seen mijo say that make me think that perhaps you have misunderstood. You see, to get a degree in chemistry, or physics, or engineering, you HAVE to see this. You can get by in computer science without it, but not if you have the least curiosity about how the physical sciences work and take a few courses- and most computer scientists take EE. From what I've seen, the most likely ones not to get it are geologists, but even among them the ones who don't are rare to say the least. This phenomenon of emergence of order from chaos is blatant, very difficult to miss, and deeply ingrained in anyone who does this kind of study, to the point that you are amazed when you don't find it. It's pervasive. You don't get far in disciplines based on math without considerable pattern-spotting ability, and this pattern keeps repeating itself over and over again everywhere you look. I'll go so far as to say that if mijo is in fact playing games, they might have a surprise ending- but I strongly suspect not. I sense the search for the order that anyone who has had long exposure to the physical sciences will look for first- the emergent order from the underlying chaos. Read back and see what you think.

 

[articulett]

Interested on your take on Meadmaker's post too, mijo. Nice post, BTW, MM- and that's why I say most people don't understand "random." I might put the occasional biologist in that camp, too.

Oh, and a certain biochemist too:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2675615&postcount=831
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2675799&postcount=834
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2675664&postcount=832

I also think that people who don't deal with creationists understand how they regularly obfuscate understanding of natural selection by taking advantage of the fact that "most people don't understand 'random'".

 

[articulett]

First, I'm not even sure I agree with that characterization.

Mijo asked a simple question. What evidence is there that evolution is non-random? It has a simple answer. There is none.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2675615&postcount=831

I think both Mijo and Meadmaker have said as much.

 

[Schneibster]

You might want to put Mijo in that camp too: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2676486&postcount=836

Apparently it's an ambiguous term.

Within a very narrow scope, yes- I think you're ignoring just how narrow that scope is, and how exactly mijo would like to make it. But I'll tell you something else, too: the emergence I have spoken of is compatible with all the definitions mijo has used. And it seems like it does emerge pretty much every time you look for it- it's to the point that when someone says, "Gee, that appears random," the inevitable reply is, "Hmmm, that's interesting." As someone pointed out on one of these threads recently, the sound of real science happening isn't "Eureka!!!!11!!" but "Gee, that's funny. I wonder why it does that."

What mijo wants is a very precise definition of "random," and then to discuss whether, by that definition, evolution is, in fact, random. I note that you have received responses that indicated incredulity when the chosen definition included "willy nilly" or "happenstance." I note that when I have suggested "stochastic," which is a technical term in thermodynamics that implicitly indicates this emergence of order from chaos, mijo latched right onto it, which is what I would expect. This implies looking for that emergence, and that implies that you've seriously misunderstood what's being said.

I suspect there are more non-biologists who are certain they understand natural selection, who do not.

These days, that might be true- you just about have to get enough chemistry to know biochemistry to do biology any more, but lots of physical scientists and engineers don't study life sciences much.

But this thread wasn't about the ways people can define random

I disagree. I think it might well have been precisely about the ways people define "random." It's just that what you've said on it hasn't been.

It was about the "non-random" aspects of evolution. I suppose in that case, an agreed upon definition would help.

Anyone but you would risk a very snide response to that. I am restraining myself with difficulty.

But so far there has been no definition that can meaningfully be applied so that one might distinguish non-random aspects of evolution from the random components of mutation. I believe the non random process mentioned was weather prediction. The stochastic example involved the stock market. The conclusion therefore is that natural is somehow more like the stock market (stochastic) then it is like weather forecasting (which mijo says is deterministic)...and therefore evolution is "not non-random". I can't imagine anyone finding that a satisfying or useful answer to the question in the OP, nor can I imagine anyone having anything about evolution or randomness clarified by such commentary.

You cut me to the quick; did you not read what I said? I didn't use any stock markets or weather forecasting. I spoke of physics, of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics (and I don't mean today- I mean quite a while back). But I'll add one: most forests, it is commonly noted, are made up of trees.

Read over what I've said in the last two posts and think a little while about it. Meanwhile, mijo seems to be working up something to respond to me with; I'll be interested to see it. And I doubt MeadMaker is leaving anytime soon, either. It's just getting interesting now, I think.

 

[Schneibster]

Oh, and a certain biochemist too:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2675615&postcount=831
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2675799&postcount=834
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2675664&postcount=832

I also think that people who don't deal with creationists understand how they regularly obfuscate understanding of natural selection by taking advantage of the fact that "most people don't understand 'random'".

I think that taking that approach bars many physical scientists from fully comprehending what biologists mean when they say, "evolution is not random." It sure did me; took Dawkins to explain it to me.

BTW, I was just poking fun with the biologist comment- be nice.