• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

Say you want to talk about theoretical simulations and their validity or how they supposedly validate ID, ...
(emphasis added)

Why would I want to do that? The only simulations I know of have been used to validate the theory of evolution, or demonstrate some aspects of it.

More importantly, and directly related to the thing I truly do want to talk about, is where did you get the idea that I, or anyone else who has contributed to this thread or to the threads on randomness, would want to do that?

There are no creationists here. There are no ID supporters here. There are a few that contribute to these boards, but none have contributed here. (At least none that I recall.) Mijo is not a creationist or an ID supporter. I am not a creationist or an ID supporter.
 
And that is a bald faced lie. I never said that evolution being random made it impossible. (Elind, this is what I mean by deliberate misrepresentation.)

In fact, I have been careful to note that the effect of long term sampling on a population is convergence. In other word, repeated rounds of selection that favor a specific trait will result in the frequency of the trait increasing in the population. This can be seen in the behavior of stochastic processes known as multitype Galton-Watson processes and multitype Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes.

I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I have said or I will report you to the moderators.

Not addressed to me, but as I have an honorable mention; please be so kind as to report us to the hall monitors so that you can be put in the place you belong and hopefully get the treatment than you need.
 
Not addressed to me, but as I have an honorable mention; please be so kind as to report us to the hall monitors so that you can be put in the place you belong and hopefully get the treatment than you need.

So what do you suggest I do since articulett is deliberately lying about what I said and she has me on "ignore"?
 
(emphasis added)

Why would I want to do that? The only simulations I know of have been used to validate the theory of evolution, or demonstrate some aspects of it.

More importantly, and directly related to the thing I truly do want to talk about, is where did you get the idea that I, or anyone else who has contributed to this thread or to the threads on randomness, would want to do that?

There are no creationists here. There are no ID supporters here. There are a few that contribute to these boards, but none have contributed here. (At least none that I recall.) Mijo is not a creationist or an ID supporter. I am not a creationist or an ID supporter.

I disagree as to mijo... if it quack like a duck... (and it does)... and you just seem to have a blind spot or be an apologist for Behe, assorted creationists, and Mijo. You don't see your double standard. You actually referred to scientists in general as liars while you've spent pages defending Mijo and Behe with arguments that are absurd... and your claims, like those above (as to who is and isn't a creationist) in not supported by the evidence. Of course, you don't think Behe is a creationist so in your semantic world maybe these guys aren't. And evolution IS random if all random means is "related to probability". You also demonized gayak on another thread while derailing the thread (about a creationist tour guide making kids who ask scientists why they lie) to make a stink about gayak's question, "who says religion isn't child abuse". You have a soft spot for some kinds of dishonesty and a much tighter definition when it comes to those who don't spin your way.
 
Last edited:
Apology accepted.

What I, personally, am trying to talk about, and what I have been trying to talk about since I first raised the topic back in April in my original thread, is why, when presented with a perspective that isn't the most common perspective, many people have a reaction that that perspective must be some sort of red herring presented in order to promote some hidden agenda, generally assumed to be part of the enemy's agenda. In this case, the enemy is IDers and their earlier evolved cousins.

Addressing this and the following post; I am of the opinion, which I thought was obvious, that attempting to present a case for, or against, the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, by alluding to this or that simulation on a statistical basis, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Forgive the caps, but I'm trying to make a point.

TTOE (to abreviate), as opposed to TOE (Theory of Everything) has nothing whatsoever to do with any attempt to simulate it with random, statistical or stochastic models, or any other evolved approximation thereof.

Facts are facts. Your co conspirator whose opinion I no longer respect, as it/he /she appears to have a bug up it's ass in the vein of paranoia, is out of the play. You keep harping on inanities.

I think that those who see red herrings are probably right. You just have an uncommonly cool talent for keeping a thread going by playing the whackos against the rationalists by being ever so polite and apparently on valium.

So, I respect your skills, but not the opinion you present, which I doubt is the one you hold.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Addressing this and the following post; I am of the opinion, which I thought was obvious, that attempting to present a case for, or against, the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, by alluding to this or that simulation on a statistical basis, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Forgive the caps, but I'm trying to make a point.

TTOE (to abreviate), as opposed to TOE (Theory of Everything) has nothing whatsoever to do with any attempt to simulate it with random, statistical or stochastic models, or any other evolved approximation thereof.

Facts are facts. Your co conspirator whose opinion I no longer respect, as it/he /she appears to have a bug up it's ass in the vein of paranoia, is out of the play. You keep harping on inanities.

I think that those who see red herrings are probably right. You just have an uncommonly cool talent for keeping a thread going by playing the whackos against the rationalists by being ever so polite and apparently on valium.

So, I respect your skills, but not the opinion you present, which I doubt is the one you hold.

:cool:

So pointing out that someone who has said something that is obviously contrafactual after being corrected many times is lying makes me paranoid?

I guess articulett is paranoid too because the "liar" bit is her shtick.

I just wanted to say that I addressed what calling evolution "random" means to me:

My explanation of evolution through natural selection as "random" may not be simpler or easier to understand, articulett, but it is correct. Calling it "random" doesn't mean that I don't think it can happen. In fact, many apparently ordered natural process are at their most basic stochastic process. For instance, the van der Waals Gas Law describes the orderly and predictable macroscopic behavior of gases, while on a microscopic level, the movement of individual gas particles is described by a probability distribution. Similarly, a nuclear fission chain reaction can be predicted when the mean free path of the unbound neutrons in the material (i.e., the mean distance a neutron has to travel before it strikes another nucleus) falls below a certain value, but the free paths of all neutrons a described by a probability distribution. Diffusion is also dependent on the mean free path of solute molecules.

The mistake in the "747 in a tornado" straw man is the assumption that order cannot arise from random processes, which is what evolutionary biologists seem to be responding to when they say that evolution is non-random. As I have said before, even though evolution functions through probabilities on the individual short duration level, it is the mean of the probabilistic selection processes over many individuals and many generations that causes evolution to take on its deterministic appearance, just like gases, nuclear fission and diffusion.
(emphasis added)

articulett responded to this post, so she has no excuse for saying that it doesn't exist. In short, she knowingly lied about what I said in an attempt to discredit me. That is why I said I was thinking about reporting her to the moderators, although now I think that it is really not actionable because in does not constitute a breach on the terms of service.
 
You actually referred to scientists in general as liars ...

I was trying to make a point, which attempt was obviously unsuccessful.

I do not think that scientists in general are liars. I also never said that, but anyone who is interested could go back and read what I actually said.

Of course, you don't think Behe is a creationist so in your semantic world

And the dictionary's semantic world.


I think Behe, and mijo, and darned near everyone else, are telling the truth about their own beliefs. Behe's beliefs don't fit the dictionary definition of "creationist". Perhaps that definition isn't as wide as it ought to be. That happens sometimes.
 
mijopaalmc said:
My explanation of evolution through natural selection as "random" may not be simpler or easier to understand, articulett, but it is correct. Calling it "random" doesn't mean that I don't think it can happen. In fact, many apparently ordered natural process are at their most basic stochastic process. For instance, the van der Waals Gas Law describes the orderly and predictable macroscopic behavior of gases, while on a microscopic level, the movement of individual gas particles is described by a probability distribution. Similarly, a nuclear fission chain reaction can be predicted when the mean free path of the unbound neutrons in the material (i.e., the mean distance a neutron has to travel before it strikes another nucleus) falls below a certain value, but the free paths of all neutrons a described by a probability distribution. Diffusion is also dependent on the mean free path of solute molecules.

OK, but here is where you are wrong. You equate quantum indeterminacy as a basic structure of the universe and an integral descriptor of atomic movement to evolution. Evolution is not basically a 'random' process if by random you refer to quantum indeterminancy. Evolution takes place at a much higher level of description. While quantum processes may play some role, they are not the primary driving force behind variability.

'Random' as it relates to evolution and natural selection still refers to our ignorance, not to the any basic structure or explanation of its mechanisms. 'Random' in descriptions of evoluationary processes refers to the way we describe and predict outcomes -- descriptions that necessarily, for us, are probabilisitc because we lack so much knowledge of the inputs. The mistake you continually make in your descriptions is assigning 'randomness' as an integral part of the process, as though that tells us anything about the process as a whole. It doesn't. "Random' is a comment about us, not about evolution.
 
Addressing this and the following post; I am of the opinion, which I thought was obvious, that attempting to present a case for, or against, the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, by alluding to this or that simulation on a statistical basis, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Forgive the caps, but I'm trying to make a point.

TTOE (to abreviate), as opposed to TOE (Theory of Everything) has nothing whatsoever to do with any attempt to simulate it with random, statistical or stochastic models, or any other evolved approximation thereof.

I hesitate to say this, but I don't get your point. Computer modelling can be a useful tool in testing theories, including evolution, or some aspect of it. If your point is that the simulations are not the phenomena themselves, certainly. So, evolution happens, whether or not we have the ability to simulate it well, but if we create a simulation based on our theories, and that simulation seems to behave the same way the real world behaves, then it constitutes evidence for the theory.

So, I'm not sure what you are getting at here.


I think that those who see red herrings are probably right. You just have an uncommonly cool talent for keeping a thread going by playing the whackos against the rationalists by being ever so polite and apparently on valium.

So, I respect your skills, but not the opinion you present, which I doubt is the one you hold.

:cool:

I'll take that as a compliment, whether or not it was meant as one.

Now, though, to my point, which you brought up again. There's no reason to doubt that the opinions I express are anything other than honest, and that goes for the other participants as well. The opinion I present really is the opinion I hold.

I might cause some confusion by standing up for people I disagree with. Because people assume that no one ever says something nice about "the other side", when I stand up for Behe, a lot of people assume I agree with Behe, and that causes some confusion. My tendency to stand up for those people has earned me the label "apologist", which label I do not object to. It's not perfectly accurate, but it's pretty close.

I make no apologies for my apologism. I think that people's beliefs should be presented accurately, and I think that whatever contempt we have for those beliefs should not be expressed as personal attacks on the believer. Specifically, go ahead and criticize Behe for believing what he does, but you may as well get it right when you talk about his beliefs, and there's no reason to assume he is lying about them. Similarly for everyone on this thread.
 
Can I make sure of something here? Are you guys describing the randomness of evolution because the organisms that survive are best described along a Bell-shaped distribution?

Or, let me ask this in another way -- don't we describe skewed distributions as non-random?
 
Last edited:
Yes. If they were "distributions" at all, they were random.

But what about the process that produces those distributions? Is that process called random?

If I throw a loaded die that tends to produce 4s and 6s and rarely produces 1,2,3,5 is that considered 'random' since the it produces a distribution? I understand that you speak of the distribution as random, but what of the process that produces that distribution?
 
But what about the process that produces those distributions? Is that process called random?

If I throw a loaded die that tends to produce 4s and 6s and rarely produces 1,2,3,5 is that considered 'random' since the it produces a distribution? I understand that you speak of the distribution as random, but what of the process that produces that distribution?

Here's where we get into confusion of the technical definition vs. the layman's definition. I'll answer for the technical definition.

Yes, the process is random. Furthermore, I want to be quite emphatic about that. This isn't my opinion. It's the opinion of every probability textbook ever written.

The definition of a random process is one which is described with random variables.


(Alternate definition which is even more accurate: An ordered sequence of random variables. That definition is really weird though, because despite its accuracy, it defines a "random process" without referencing anything about a "process". There's good reason for doing it that way, but it confuses a lot of people, and I won't discuss it any further unless someone asks.)

Now for the confusing part.

A lot of the time, people use the word "randomly" to refer to "without bias". If I pick a card "at random", every card is as likely to come up as any other.
Sometimes, this is confused with "all probabilities being equal", which isn't correct, either. We think of it that way because we have an image of a die as having six choices, and we expect each of those six sides to come up as often as any other. So, an unbiased, i.e. random, selection will also have a uniform distribution.

However, some games call for something called a "average die". It has six sides, and they are labelled 2,3,3 ,4,4,5. The value rolled "randomly", i.e. without bias, will not have a uniform distribution on the numbers 1-6. It is still a random number, though.

When we think about loaded dice, why do we say that they are not random? From a technical definition, they are random, but with a nonuniform distribution. However, when we think about dice, we expect them to produce uniform distributions, and we create games of chance based on the fact that they will do so. When someone knowingly uses loaded dice, they are probably cheating. In other words, they are violating the "unbiased" sense of the word "random". They are deliberately fixing the game so that the numbers are selected using a distribution favorable to them, instead of the expected distribution. We often say that the numbers produced were not random, because they were not the random numbers expected if an unbiased process were used.

Even in probability textbooks, you'll sometimes see that definition used in the examples. If someone says that a random number is generated rolling a fair die, we assume that what they mean is a random number whose values are integers uniformly distributed on 1-6. That isn't the definition of "random", though, that's the definition of a "fair die".
 
When we think about loaded dice, why do we say that they are not random? From a technical definition, they are random, but with a nonuniform distribution. However, when we think about dice, we expect them to produce uniform distributions, and we create games of chance based on the fact that they will do so. When someone knowingly uses loaded dice, they are probably cheating. In other words, they are violating the "unbiased" sense of the word "random". They are deliberately fixing the game so that the numbers are selected using a distribution favorable to them, instead of the expected distribution. We often say that the numbers produced were not random, because they were not the random numbers expected if an unbiased process were used.

Is there a technical definition of non-random? Because non-uniform, skewed distribution is the very definition of non-random out in the real world.
 
Is there a technical definition of non-random?

Not random.

Because non-uniform, skewed distribution is the very definition of non-random out in the real world.

Do you have a definition of "real"?

ETA: Dungeons and Dragons isn't exactly "the real world", but on the other hand, games are. The game "Dungeons and Dragons" makes use of a lot of tables for random events.

Here's a table of "random magic items".


01-04 Armor and shields
05-09 Weapons
10-44 Potions
45-46 Rings
47-81 Scrolls
82-91 Wands
92-100 Wondrous items

It's non-uniform. It's skewed. Did they mislabel the table? Should it be "non-random magic items"?

The "randomness" refers to the fact that it will be decided by chance, as opposed to being selected by the Dungeon Master. If I, as DM, decide that when they kill the MegaTroll, they will get a "Sword of Dragon Slaying", that isn't random. On the other hand, if I decide that they will get one roll on the magic item table, that's random, even though rings aren't very likely, and potions are. If I roll once on the magic items table, get a 45, and I decide that I don't like rings so I roll again, that's not random, because I deliberately biased the selection process. I cheated. If I had decided in advance that I will treat 45 and 46 as "roll again", it's random again, but with a non-uniform, skewed, distribution, that is different from the original non-uniform, skewed, distribution.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom