Oh, and once again--having random components does not make an entire process random. If that was the case than Algebra would be random and algorithms. I mean, you could call them that, but it's about as uninformative as calling evolution random when "random" is only half the equation--and not even true randomness at that
This does not follow. Algebra's description af a random process is not "random", the random process
is.
I'm not claiming to be right and yes, Jimbob, I understand how ruggedness in regards to environments hones the direction of selection.
I am saying what I have been saying all along--if your definition of random means that this thread is evolving randomly--then everything evolves randomly per that same definition. Because such a definition causes creationist confusion, the way most scientists explain evolution is to distinguish the relative randomness of mutation form the selective forces that shape the species--even when they are not talking to 6 year olds...but to other scientists.
This thread is not evolving, it might be considered to develop, but beyond two hours after each post
there is no selection. (except by moderators if one of us goes postal...)
Evolution requires selection.
It's a semantics argument. The article is very clear as to what is meant by "not random" and "determined". I share their definitions and their conclusions and so does PNAS. So far, I've seen no dissenting opinion to the article. Evolution is the same no matter what words you use. I prefer the way it is used in the article quoted, and it seems that the vast majority of people agree. I have yet to see a paper that says evolution IS random or "natural selection IS random". Sure, it involves probabilities--but so does a loaded die. In fact, almost all scientists will point out that mutations aren't even truly random rather than say selection is not "non-random" as mijo claims.
The majority of people, when talking colloquially, and without precision. As soon as a technical discussion starts, they start using the precise, technically agreed terms, as used by all numerate disciplines. There are situations where different disciplines have different definitions for similar terms, but not this.
They often use "stochastic", or "probabilistic", to avoid some of these pointless semantic knots, but "random" is a synonym.
[/QUOTE]
Mijo claimed that there is not enough information to say whether evolution is random or not. There seems to be enough information to conclude that most scientists think it is misleading and ambiguous to describe evolution as random and that it's best to describe it as a two part system--one part fairly random, one part much less so--some might even say "not random"--they might even publish that in a peer reviewed article as mijo asked for --within days of his asking the question. Of course no answer will satisfy some people even if it is exactly what they asked for. I mean, what better answer could there be? What evidence would you guys accept to conclude that natural selection is "not random"? And if no evidence would do--then it's a faith based claim. It's like claiming "god is isness" and then complaining when an atheist says he doesn't believe in god by saying, "how can you not believe in isness"?
Schneibester has shown papers showing that randomness is important for selection.
There is no right or wrong, guys. Or if there is--take it up with the National Academy of Sciences who printed that paper. I am saying what they are saying, and I am defining the bolded words the same way.
There are lots of definitions of random that could lead one to conclude that evolution is random. Most biologist think that such a statement plays into the creationist canard and leaves out the real miracle worker--natural selection. Natural selection is what makes things look "designed" though they are not. As talk origins said, those who claim evolution is random, tend to be people who don't understand natural selection.
And I say that you don't understand how random is used in every numerate field.
Do you
really think it is helpful to talk about "the evolution of the fighter aircraft in WWII"?
That is what makes me suspect your understanding of evolution..
I suppose it is better than talking about "the evolution of this thread" as at least there
was selection of designs, but the the selection was nonrandom, and not probabilistic. And the designs were "designed". A very poor analogy for evolution
Who cares if I think it's ambiguous to describe evolution as a random process? Why not go with the scientists. Do any of them say evolution is a random process? Do any of them say natural selection is a random process? Sure there are aspects of it that can be modeled on probability charts--but all processes have aspects that can be modeled on probability charts.
They say it is stochastic or probabilistic, which is what I have been saying.
Over the history of the Earth it
is random,
because the environment changes randomly. And I defy you to find any non-religious scientist to claim otherwise. (Some might say pseudorandom, but I doubt it).
I've already provided recent peer reviewed evidence where natural selection was described as "not random". I think it's clear that there is nothing in the world I could show any randomite so that they would conclude that PNAS et. al. is being more informative in describing natural selection as "not random" than they are being by claiming it is. Nothing, right? So it's a faith based claim. Yet, if you show me one peer reviewed article that is recent and useful that actually says that evolution is random or natural selection is random then I might see the utility of describing it as such. I understand the probability definition, but it's only useful if you actually give the probabilities, jimbob. Saying, "natural selection can be described by a probability chart" is too vague to be useful.
I don't care what your definitions of random are or your definition of evolution is. Because I understand Dawkins and the PNAS article just fine--and even Kaufmann. I'm not the one wondering why anyone would call natural selection "non-random". I understand the answer to Mijo's OP question. I'm the one using the terms exactly as Dawkins, Talk Origins, the Berkeley site and PNAS is.
But as soon as they start talking about selection they talk about
probabilities. They talk about "not random and haphazard". I would say they would e clearer if they said simply "not haphazard".
Sure schneibster, you replied line by line...but then you said you were "done"--so why should I respond in kind--and you infer so many things that are not supported by the evidence--plus, I like you too much to actually care whether you think it's meaningful to call evolution random. (And I hear we are competing with each other in the language awards thread this month.) Besides, I think there is tons of stuff I said that you completely ignored or twisted like the Kaufmann-Behe thing or saying that I was bent on saying "evolution is not random" with partial cut and paste quotes or that I didn't understand the importance of randomness despite multiple posts showing that to the extreme. I don't understand half of what you claim--not the petard thing or whether you actually "get" natural selection. And I DO understand the scientific articles. None of them are calling evolution random. And the randomites don't even seem to understand each other. I have no idea what you want from me or are trying to get me to say or how to make you happy.
"And the randomites don't even seem to understand each other. "
How many times do I have to say that I accept Schneibester's definition of random, as being essentially the same as mine, his post uses different words because we have not corresponded to outside this thread about this subject. But it is my contention that Schneibester is saying the same as me, and that I understand Schneibester's posts.
Schneibester Please could you confirm or refute my assertion that my definition of random is essentially the same as yours.
Anyone else?
You are saying this, right... evolution is random per your definition of random which you believe to be the true definition of random that all scientists are using.
If you are using the same definition as all scientists, then natural selection is the "not random" part of evolution per a very recent science article in a peer reviewed science magazine. What have you offered that even comes close? You can't just quote an article that shows probability distributions and say that it proves evolution is random, you know. And you can't be claiming to use the real definition when PNAS is defining random and "not random" differently than you.
The point about a probability distribution is that it describes the distribution of the probability (aka chance) of a particular outcome.
This is axiomatically random.
I am not claiming anything that the PNAS article is not also claiming. I am well aware that it's a semantic issue. I don't care about definitions as much as I care that information about natural selection is conveyed. If you think you and mijo are doing that--excellent. Kaufmann is doing that--but he isn't calling natural selection random. Nor was the article where you claimed I was hoisted by my petard. You just seem to be seeing what you want to see.
Random components do not a random process make...not for me anyhow, unless you have peer reviewed evidence that actually claims otherwise. If this was the case, then Algebra could be termed a random process.
"Algebra could be termed a random process"
No, that is like saying that this sentance is random, because it contains
the word "random".
