What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

Could you back this up with some evidence? How many games would an observer have to watch to discern where to place his money? A thousand? Ten thousand? And how much more likely is the ball to land in said area? .001%? .00001%? This is about as credible as when people claim to have a "system" for winning at keno or the slots. Roulette wheels are precision balanced and mounted on precision bearings. They are well enough balanced and level enough that any effect on the randomness of each play will be so small as to be insignificant.

Now, now... you know that evidence is anathema to a creationist. Faith is the be all and end all don't you know?

 

[Mozybyte]

It is unbelievable to see how much Religious Paternity has ruffled scientists, if the Science on Evolution was indeed steadfast conclusive rather than perceived no one would give the time of day or engage "Creationists".
55 pages so far of this garble is sufficient proof of the Vagueness of both arguments...
Live and let live, You are both as "Boxed" as each other... For a different outcome, and potential growth, try stepping out with a Clear Open Mind, heck! Become real Scientists...
Evolution explains Nothing, Creation by virtue of Supernatural means explains even less, no wonder you guys like each others company so much.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT CREATION, but I'm certain about Creativity and its possibilities... Somehow ALL come from Nothing, Get to work! You BUMS.

Oh Yeah, I forgot...
0+(-C)= EverythingHere

 

[articulett]

I just think it's so precious the way the trolls come over here all blustery and self important... say, have you met rttjc... you guys would hit it off. Oh, and do you know that Behe accepts common decent? Scary, huh? Oh, and meet Rodney... he's an older troll, but he doesn't have anyone to play with now that hammy is gone and Interesting Ian long gone... You guys should start your own thread... oh and get Kleinman... but stay away from Hewitt and Mijo-- they don't want to be associated with the kook creationists...these guys are still trying to pass off as being all about science (and don't bug Von either--he's a creationist, but he's smarter than you all and I rather like him)..

Not that you guys are kooks, mind you-- It's just that you all have such interesting points of views and are united in your misunderstanding of science, and I think you could really enjoy stroking each others' egos for a while... I hear Hovind could use pen pals in jail too.

Heck, maybe you can even scrounge up some evidence for your alternative hypothesis. That would be super duper wooper.

 

[Mozybyte]

Personally I visit Churches like I visit Museums, Art Galleries and even Parks and Gardens.... I find them inspiring, unlike you, Culett.

 

[Meadmaker]

Could you back this up with some evidence? How many games would an observer have to watch to discern where to place his money? A thousand? Ten thousand? And how much more likely is the ball to land in said area? .001%? .00001%? This is about as credible as when people claim to have a "system" for winning at keno or the slots. Roulette wheels are precision balanced and mounted on precision bearings. They are well enough balanced and level enough that any effect on the randomness of each play will be so small as to be insignificant.

FWIW, people have cheated the roulette wheels. It isn't the balance of the wheel that's the issue, or where the wheel stops. The way they did it was by realizing the frets between the numbers weren't perfectly evenly spaced.

Today, a casino will take the different wheels and move them from one table to the next to prevent this sort of cheating. Also, I would assume today's casinos actually record every spin of the wheel, and track them with computers so that they know right away if there is any deviation at all from pure chance.

ETA: The part about tracking every spin is speculation on my part. I assume they do it because a) it would be easy, and b) it would eliminate that small chance they would lose money. The part about moving wheels around is definitely true.

 

[Meadmaker]

Rittjc,

I know you don't have time to answer every question, but I would be curious how you would address mine, especially the one that ends the first paragraph below.

So, a few questions:

Which part of that don’t you buy into? Of course, there’s an awful lot of arm waving in that description. That is the trouble we have. We really can’t fill in the details completely at any step of the way, and there are some steps about which we are almost completely clueless. So, more than just “not buying into” a step, which part do you think is just completely impossible? And how do you determine that? That’s the real premise of ID. It’s not just that they don’t see how it could happen, they assert that it cannot happen. What basis is there for that assertion?

Back to the thread topic, though, how does this relate to randomness? Does randomness have anything to do with your objections? I don’t think it ought to. It doesn’t provide an obstacle. Sure, it would be faster if there wasn’t so much randomness in the process. If every beneficial gene was guaranteed to be copied, that would make things evolve faster, but we have time. We can make lots of bad copies, and they’ll die out, and we can wait millions of years for something really good to come up. When it does, it might take many generations to really spread through the population, but it will spread. Just because it follows a random path doesn’t mean we don’t know the general direction of that path. So, is your objection related to randomness, or some other issue?

 

[VonNeumann]

Art', you have completely dodged my point about the superposition of two strings of information w.r.t. nylonase. I cannot determine if you are too stubborn to think about it, or too religious about your belief to allow it into your paradigm (subconscious or deliberate), or plain lying, but unless you will address the point instead of lecture me about dogs and post facto observations, I will have to conclude you are avoiding. Same for Hokulele who deferred to your expertise, out of his inability or unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence.

So Von--given your explanation, how would you define the question in the OP?

RE: "What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?" is the OP.

What is this even asking? Evolution is a theory. If presumed fact, then he is asking what evidence is there for the evolutionary process having non-random elements. And as a theory, he is asking if there is a consensus amongst those who might be considered peer experts on evolutionary theory, that there is allowance for non-random mechanisms.

That is why this thread is all over the place, because the OP reveals the lack of consensus, even amongst those who consider themselves Ev-believers.

So my advice to you Art' is for you to go back and pedantically lecture about peppered moths and giraffe necks and antelope that run quick as a bunny so they can survive and all the other simplistic unoriginal babble you like to spew. I don't come here to try to win arguments or to try to convert people but I believe that is the main reason you are here-- you are an Ev Evangelist . You abandoned engaging with me on my point I was making about nylonase. You sniff it and think you smell the same old thing for which you have your canned response. Get outside your knee-jerk response and think! You are not thinking. Well I know you are capable, but you will not. So go back and be school marm and leave the deep questions such as "what is randomness" to the meta-mathematicians and philosophers because the right answers to that question do not bode well for the future of the Ev-fairy tale in Science.

 

[articulett]

Okay Von... I'll try with the nylonase... but your Dickens analogy just makes you look like you haven't got a clue. I don't think anyone is really following you--perhaps you are just too brilliant for us all, and maybe you should be writing up your new hypothesis complete with evidence for your intelligent designer that knew eons in advance that there would be nylon in the future and some bacteria would just find it so digestible if only they had a frameshift mutation...so the clever designer then superimposed it over the normal genes so that humans in the future could know of her cleverness.

It's astounding all right. Astounding that you find this incredible... but that's the thing with intelligent designers--they see the "magic"--can't imagine how it could happen and, instead of learning how, they invent sci fi scenarios where there's magic designer who had them, specifically, in mind-- and our measley little planet was the place the "amazing plan" to unfold. It's just that you guys are always presenting these alternate scenarios and dissing evolution without even understanding the simplest facts about it-- and you never have evidence--you guys all have your own problems with evolution, your own obfuscating semantic games your own amazing things that you can't explain except by some preplan design and no evidence... ever.... none--you guys don't even have dialogue with each other. I like you von, but I get lost in the crazy.

I don't know... can't you just speak plain human like cyborg or hokulele or foster zygote...

 

[Mozybyte]

Culett, you single handed do more for the Creationist movement than themselves.
Rhetoric and abuse will not shy a mind that works, only exposes yours and your disdain of others.
I understand how important it is to you to have us all follow you and you alone, but so far, about yourself only inadequate Dogma shows... Not to mention the Immaturity and lack of Charm. Maybe you could get a flute... Can You Dance? Sing?
You do seem to have plenty of time for the ideas of others... Maybe you ought to question your abilities a little more, or failing that, stop questioning others... Do your thing... Show us the brilliance of your mind, the Origin of your species.
By the way, Thanks for the welcome, you are truly gifted...
I'm so proud that I got the attention of God on my first post here, and that you know me so well... Do you give Mass?

 

[Oppressed]

I do not view natural selection to be random. It does use randomness, but it has predictable results.

I find the entire process of evolution to be very predictable. The underlying rules of existence dictate that on some percentage of locations in existence life will develop. Not just any life, but intelligent life that will learn to master the basic knowledge of manipulating its environment on the molecular level. I do not see that as random at all.

These natural laws are very sophisticated and they guarantee intelligent races similar to us will develop.

Many designed feats of science and engineering where we know what we want and achieve what we want by design include massive numbers of random events as part of the process. Yet, the overall goal of the process is not random but designed.

 

[cyborg]

Von - take your teleology to science fiction and leave reality to the real scientists.

 

[Meadmaker]

Culett, you single handed do more for the Creationist movement than themselves.

We have met the enemy, and they are us.







ETA: To avoid misinterpretation, I'm agreeing with Mozybyte that sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

 

[VonNeumann]

My general parting comments:
1. This thread has at it's core a deeper question. It is a question that should be discussed but is too deep to be handled by those who have never thought deeper than finch beaks and roulette wheels. The problem for Evolution-faithers to discuss this is that they expose their public dogma that "Evolution is scientific fact" to any observer that in truth "Evolution is a conjecture without scientific consensus". The driving engine in "the theory" for spontaneous generation of complexity is the proposed ludicrously simple mechanism called "random mutation and natural selection". Shouldn't the Ev-faithers be able to discuss "random" more intelligently and with more consensus? Anyone googling some of the keywords used in this thread may find themselves here, and many of them will laugh at the insane folly. Yes, you skeptics exposed yourselves very well here for all to see, that at the core, you are just as un-unified and arbitrary as any religious cult--the very thing you are so sure you avoid being. Your nebulous vague god is "randomness" and you can't define it any more than can an IDer define the "designer".
2. On Nylonase, there really is not sufficient information AFAIK, to make strong assumptions that the original protein had a function in the bacteria. No one picked up on my assertion that the original protein was also a digestive enzyme. This may not be a fact. I cannot find out if anyone knows what purpose, if any, the original protein had. We'll have to wait, as someday more light will be shed on this. Nevertheless, instead of dismissing my metaphor on the forementioned, the only attack I think I saw was on quetioning whether or not I defined a frame-shift as "mutation" and the assertion that the formula for nylon just happening to be there in advance should not be surprising. This is just another subject that is too speculative to be brought into this forum because the prevailing "skeptic" thought is cast in immutable dogma. If you disagree with the dogma you get the volume turned up about a priori and posteriori as if you are deaf. I hear the same things so much here, some of it reminds me of a religious nonsensical chant: 'o fili ma boni beli, dominos fo biscos, beli selis al is dominos' (- 1972, Cheech and Chong).

As you shoot yourselves in the foot, ask yourselves, "just who is the enemy?".

Hehhehhhehhehehehehhhh...

 

[cyborg]

The enemy is ignorance - not man, beast nor god.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The enemy is ignorance - not man, beast nor god.

Physician heal thyself.

 

[cyborg]

My general parting comments:
1. This thread has at it's core a deeper question. It is a question that should be discussed but is too deep to be handled by those who have never thought deeper than finch beaks and roulette wheels.

Yeah Von - because you're real deep when you equate everything to matters of 'faith'.

The problem for Evolution-faithers to discuss this is that they expose their public dogma that "Evolution is scientific fact" to any observer that in truth "Evolution is a conjecture without scientific consensus".

If lies are truth then that is the truth otherwise it's a lie.

The driving engine in "the theory" for spontaneous generation of complexity is the proposed ludicrously simple mechanism called "random mutation and natural selection".

Whereas Von proposes complexity 'just exists' - a ludicrously complex mechanism.

Shouldn't the Ev-faithers be able to discuss "random" more intelligently and with more consensus?

We can make some progress now you're leaving.

Yes, you skeptics exposed yourselves very well here for all to see, that at the core, you are just as un-unified and arbitrary as any religious cult--the very thing you are so sure you avoid being.

Coming from you Von - an unending source of woo ideas - that is rich as ****.

[quote Nevertheless, instead of dismissing my metaphor on the forementioned, the only attack I think I saw was on quetioning whether or not I defined a frame-shift as "mutation" and the assertion that the formula for nylon just happening to be there in advance should not be surprising.[/quote]

Teleology again Von? How tiresome.

This is just another subject that is too speculative to be brought into this forum because the prevailing "skeptic" thought is cast in immutable dogma.

Uh no Von it's because you need to demonstrate that teleology is a better explanation for why construct X can achieve Y rather than axioms A entail it - and a whole bunch of other stuff which you ignore because it does not confirm your bias.

If you disagree with the dogma you get the volume turned up about a priori and posteriori as if you are deaf.

Just because you don't have a clue what it entail Von.

 

[cyborg]

Physician heal thyself.

Doing so.

Now, when are you going to have an attempt Mijo? Or are you perfect already?

Perhaps you could start by explaining, precisely, what use the word 'random' is in mijo world where everything is random? Please explain why it is not made redundant.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Doing so.

Now, when are you going to have an attempt Mijo? Or are you perfect already?

Perhaps you could start by explaining, precisely, what use the word 'random' is in mijo world where everything is random? Please explain why it is not made redundant.

I have already explained in great detail that the axiomatization of probability theory precludes certain things being described by probability distributions (e.g., functions that are defined on measures other than probability measures, non-measurable function, functions that don't have explicitly defined measures or the measures of which can be ignored for the purpose of the the application at hand*).

Ergo:

Not everything is random.

You are just using that argument to cover up the fact that you don't understand probability theory and that you are not going to make any effort to.

*For instance, it doesn't matter to elementary algebra and calculus that all the function discussed therein are measurable functions because they are defined on Borel set of the extended real line. It also doesn't matter to these branches of mathmatics that the Borel sets don't necessarily have a Lebesgue measure of 1 (i.e., they do not have a probability measure).

 

[Rodney]

What exactly constitutes plausible in your mind?

Because I'm thinking even a full-blown Earth simulator wouldn't satisfy you.

No, what I have in mind is using probability analysis to construct a model showing that life could plausibly have evolved to its present level of complexity with only random mutations, environmental factors, and natural selection.

 

[cyborg]

Not everything is random.

QM exists. QM is random. QM operates on everything/

Therefore: everything is random.

That's your argument mijo - not mine. Don't get pissy with me because you can't see the logical end-points of your arguments.