Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[jimbob]

I know you think poor mijo has been picked on by me-- but people get sick of the spin, apologies, blither, lies-- and just because you don't see it-- doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm sure you would be sticking up for Behe too. People who don't wade in this muck, are readily influence into thinking that such people are on the up and up-- even though they can never summarize what the person they are defending is saying--what the point is. You guys are just all over the place. You did that on the other thread where Mijo asked his insincere question about the non-random aspects of evolution and refused all answers except a couple of apologists who don't make much more sense than he does-- not as far as aI can tell. Why are you guys so vague and mealy mouthed when it comes to HOW the appearance of design or direction comes about? Why? If you can't convey that, you've got a useless definition-- unless the Discovery Institute is hiring. Instead of getting hissy-- get a clue. Learn from those who HAVE described evolution. Read Darwin. Modify your explanation. Read Behe. Make sure you don't sound like him-- or expect those who have seen it all too much to call you on it.

Why should I let Behe choose the debating ground, when saying "biased and probabilistic" selection keeps the accuracy.

Would you prefer "Traits subtly load the 'dice' towards different levels of success or failure"?

Not Behe, he is intellectually dishonest. (When I am feeling charitable, I think that he is also being dishonest to himself, i.e. he believes what he says).

He obviously has the intellectual capacity to understand evolution, and to accept it in certain arbitary situations. He just doesn't bother refuses to follow the implications through to their logical conclusion.

People are able to compartmentalise beliefs: "the sign of a first-class mind, is the ability to hold two mutually contradictory viewpoints simultaneously".

What is it? What are you saying. Who find your descriptions of evolution useful and for what? Who teaches or publishes in peer review using words the way you guys do. No one. And your egos are keeping you from actually getting a clue. Listen to ichmeunowasp, et. al.--they are much clearer and smarter and up on the subject than you--really-- and meadmaker-- and, especially, mijo.

ichmeunowasp, likes the description of natural selection as probabilistic

Especially when discussing evolution, in which nothing could possibly work without variability, I think 'random' is a very misleading term. I like probabilistic. That's a very good term for biology.

Why are you guys so vague and mealy mouthed when it comes to HOW the appearance of design or direction comes about?

Evolution means that an organism will be optimised for reproduction in its environment. That is the inevitibility of evolution. This optimisation can be very elaborate, but there are (an infinite?) number of other optimal solutions that also could have arisen, depending on the ecological niche that is occupied. Zebra and caribou both occupy a grazing niche.

It is just because we are here to observe that we (some of us) think there is anything special about the evolution.

You can trace our evolution, and in retrospect it might seem inevitible, but it is like saying that the course of a river is inevitible because it is in a valley, not that the river caused the valley in the first place. (An anology of limited usefullness, but I hope you can see what I am trying to get at, and please ignore the bit where this analogy breaks down)

I read an interview with Behe in the guardian and got really irritated at the poor choice of interviewer, and soft questions, to say nothing of the answers.

 

[articulett]

I prefer it the way Dawkins says it... and cyborg... and Dr. A.... and Ayala...and myself...and Shermer...and Steve Jones... and ichneumonowasp and just about everyone else except Behe and Mijo. You and Meadmaker are better--but nobody is likely to understand what the hell you are talking about. You seem to have a bizarre need like Behe to describe evolution in terms of randomness. How are you different? Here's Dawkins review of Behe's book:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/b...tml?ex=1187928000&en=6d29a6575b23983a&ei=5070

The crucial passage in “The Edge of Evolution” is this: “By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept.” (Behe's words in quotes).

(Dawkins response in part)

What a bizarre thing to say! Leave aside the history: unacquainted with genetics, Darwin set no store by randomness. New variants might arise at random, or they might be acquired characteristics induced by food, for all Darwin knew. Far more important for Darwin was the nonrandom process whereby some survived but others perished. Natural selection is arguably the most momentous idea ever to occur to a human mind, because it — alone as far as we know — explains the elegant illusion of design that pervades the living kingdoms and explains, in passing, us. Whatever else it is, natural selection is not a “modest” idea, nor is descent with modification.

But let’s follow Behe down his solitary garden path and see where his overrating of random mutation leads him. He thinks there are not enough mutations to allow the full range of evolution we observe. There is an “edge,” beyond which God must step in to help.


As I said-- if it quacks like a duck...

To me, you guys are just as vague, misleading, and clueless. How is your definition different or better? Why are you as vague as Behe when it comes to natural selection? Darwins theory was about Natural Selection-- why are you guys so poor at describing it? Or does anyone other than yourselves feel you do better than all the others? Do you guys even understand what each other is saying? Or Behe. That's the problem with the woo, the schizophrenics, the blowhards, the apologists, and the "smart but ignorant". They are hard to differentiate. They all sound like they might be saying something, but they just never do. And they seem to think they should be understood and respected without offering anything like that in return. If you want people to hear you-- you might try actually reading and comprehending them. This is clearly not your field, and you can actually learn something useful.

Either make your definition more like Dawkins and less like Behe, or be prepared to be derided as a creationist (which Behe is).

 

[articulett]

jimbob... I don't think anyone is saying your way of describing it is great-- it's just more on target then mijo. The Butterflies did no evolve "due to probability"-- only the one's with the mutation were "selected" to live and beget others like themselves. No need to mention probability anywhere... and when you do, it just sound garbled... not "wrong"-- just not clear. Garbled. Like Behe. Differently garbled, but I bet he's attached to his garble as you are to yours. Dawkins is so eloquent and clear -- to so many. Why would you imagine yourselves better when no one is saying that? And how can you read Behe compared to Dawkins and conclude that creationists could ever explain anything to anyone?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Randomness of a phenomenon is not itself 'random'.[/B] It can often be precisely characterized, usually in terms of probability or expected value. For instance quantum mechanics allows a very precise calculation of the half-lives of atoms even though the process of atomic decay is a random one. More simply, though we cannot predict the outcome of a single toss of a fair coin, we can characterize its general behavior by saying that if a large number of tosses are made, roughly half of them will show up "Heads". Ohm's law and the kinetic theory of gases are precise characterizations of macroscopic phenomena which are random on the microscopic level.

This isn't a semantic game?

Randomness isn't random?

 

[Meadmaker]

and neither Meadmaker nor Mijo can really explain it--

Certainly we can't explain it to you, but there are many possible explanations why that might be.

 

[Meadmaker]

You have provided no text that would call a loaded die random.

No one ever asked for one. Will a web page do? I typed "loaded die" and "random" into google. Here's the second link.

http://www.brucesimmons.com/statistics243/Random Variables (TI).doc

Consider a six-sided die that is loaded so that the probabilities of rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 are given by the table below. This probability distribution can be referred to as the distribution of a random variable X. We use a capital X to refer collectively to all the possible dice rolls, and a small x to refer to the individual dice rolls that might result.

It looks like a homework assignment that a Professor Simmons assigned for Statistics 243.

If that doesn't work, there are plenty of other links that say the same thing. A few of the early hits have some misinformation in them, though. They come from some yahoos discussing randomness on some forum or another.

the more tosses, the less random.

You won't find the phrase "less random" in a probability textbook.

But this alone should make you admit that it's a bad word, but you Behe and Mijo are obsessed with using it to describe evolution in it's entirety.

Are we? Or is that what you are assuming we are doing despite the fact that we say we are not.

I've been saying that in some cases it's a good word, and in some cases it's a bad word. It depends on circumstances and the audience. That doesn't sound like "in it's entirety" to me. How about you, mijo?

peer reviewed papers disagree.

Some do. It seems to me that mijo has quoted a lot of them that say something else.

 

[Meadmaker]

As I said-- if it quacks like a duck...

Two pieces of advice to all. Don't go quail hunting with Dick Cheney, or duck hunting with articulett.

 

[six7s]

Two pieces of advice to all. Don't go quail hunting with Dick Cheney, or duck hunting with articulett.

Since when has firing at random, from the hip, proved effective?

 

[Walter Wayne]

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.

Most people don't think non-uniform or skewed distributions are non-random. Just listen to them use the word. They will say movement in monopoly is random, and it is non-uniform (7 being more likely than 2 or 12). They will call mutation random, but different mutations have different probabilities. I can think of at least two people who have given me the "uniform" definition of random in a discussion, only to later refer to non-uniform processes as random.

It seems that some people will state a definition that requires uniform distribution, but it seems incredibly few people actually use the word this way.

Walt

 

[jimbob]

Instead of sticking up for Mijo, why don't the both of you get a clue--actually read Darwin, Dawkins, Talk Origins, and the many brilliant and insightful people on this forum who have spent hours answering your questions. You guys are just so blind to what you can learn while insisting that you have something to teach.

Instead of discusing what Dawkins says in a review of a creationist book, (yes I agree that in intent and practice, ID is creationism) what about when Dawkins is writing about evolution in his books.

How do you avoid a probabilistic treatment when he says "a slective advantage as low as 1:1000 will get fixed in a population in as little as one thousand generations"

 

[jimbob]

I prefer talking about traits, because if the selection pressures are for smaller individuals (e.g. on an island with a reduced population) individuals with this trait have the advantage, and it it doesn't matter what gene is different, as long as the end result is a smaller organism.

In this case about half the population of offspring would have a smaller mature size than their parents, and thus the selective advantages work for a larger number than ifo one is talking about a single mutation.

In the case of a single advantageous mutation arising initially in one individual; the best (only) way of assessing how likely this mutation is to spread through the population is to perform a probabilistic analysis. It would be more advanced than my simple versions, but it needen't be by much.

Articulett,

In a stable population, a single advantageous mutation provides a 10% selective advantage, and arises in a single (asexually reproducing) organism.

The average brood size for this type of organism is 10.

1) At the birth of this organism, what is the probability of the mutation spreading through the population?

2) The organism makes it through to breed,

a) What is the probability of the mutation spreading now?

b) What is the probaility of the mutation remaining for 5 generations?

3) The mutation is now in 1% of a large popluation, now what is likely to happen?

I think these are usefull types of questions, and ones that can be only answered probabilistically, how would you answer such questions?

 

[articulett]

Certainly we can't explain it to you, but there are many possible explanations why that might be.

.

From what I see you aren't explaining it to anybody. You don't even understand natural selection and why that's what the wedge strategy attacks. You're the ones not getting it from where I sit. I understand Dawkins, the MSNBC article, peer reviewed articles, all the top writers in the field on the subject-- I understand papers that Mijo pretends to understand-- I pass boards on the subject, teach others, and understand the majority just fine. That seems to indicate to me, that It's you guys who are in the minority and you guys don't even really understand each other... you guys don't see the poor way you communicate "natural selection"-- you are as clear as Behe... and then you get upset when I say as much.

But it's great isn't it-- because those who think similar to me can see that they aren't alone in getting the creationist/apologist runaround-- they can see that there is this insidious sort of apologetic blustery nothingness from a few people while the majority of people on this forum are pretty damn insightful. It helps to know who the self-important blowhards are. I'm sure those who agree with you are welcoming this great opportunity to see what a mean person I am. And how I slander people left and right by calling peoplecreationists and apologists willy nilly and warning others as to what engaging them results in.

This is a good chance to display personalities. Because competent people tend to presume the communication problem is with them, but the incompetent people never clue into the fact that they are the incompetent ones. Since you feel I'm the latter-- aren't you delighted you goaded me into displaying myself so fully so all those who think like you can realize how stupid and wrong I am? -- And how you and Mijo and Jim Bob are saying something valuable about how Behe doesn't really "lie" and scientists are "unclear" and evolution is "random" but the problem is that nobody is using the singular special technical broad definition of random, etc.

 

[articulett]

Instead of discusing what Dawkins says in a review of a creationist book, (yes I agree that in intent and practice, ID is creationism) what about when Dawkins is writing about evolution in his books.

How do you avoid a probabilistic treatment when he says "a slective advantage as low as 1:1000 will get fixed in a population in as little as one thousand generations"

You don't. You just don't insist on calling it probabilistic knowing that creationists (and Mijo) define random as "anything related to probabilities". You can quote Dawkins and be clear. You aren't so clear when you are trying to twist his words into support for Mijo/Behe's view that evolution IS random. Dawkins, like the best biologists and science writers goes out of his way to make Natural Selection clear. The "randomness" is the easy part. Even the bozos get it. It's natural selection you think you understand and you think you are conveying despite the complete lack of evidence for anyone talking as vaguely as you are and communicating anything to anyone. Yes, probabilities are involved. So what . The word isn't even necessary unless you are talking about specifics (as Dawkins does). Remember, we don't tell people that their chance of having a kid with Sickle cell disease is "random" because it's "based on probabilities"-- and we don't say it's "probabilistic" even though I suppose it is. We use clarity and give them the numbers and avoid words that mislead and don't really add to understanding

The difference between Mijo, Behe, you , Meadmaker and Dawkins... is that the former all think they are communicating the idea better than the latter, but they show no evidence of understanding natural selection much less being able to teach others about it. Dawkins, on the contrary, like Darwin is fairly easy to understand-- and has taught a most elegant concept to millions.

Hence, if your goal is to communicate-- aim to sound like the good communicators. If you sound like Behe, expect to get the same treatment-- it means you are saying something that appears only to be useful for propping up your opinion of yourself-- and useless for clarifying evolution. The more you argue, the more the answer to the OP looks like, "none that can communicate natural selection clearly."

You think you understand, but my student and tons of uneducated people here on the forum understand and explain it better than you. The MSNBC article did even. Who cares if evolution is "probabilistic" --why the obsession with words. Isn't clarity the goal, not semantics?

 

[articulett]

meadmaker... it doesn't say a loaded die is random... you can extrapolate that... but it doesn't say that. "Random processes do not a random process make". Like Mijo, you guys do these weird semantic things and twist articles all so you can prove to yourselves that "evolution is random" (whatever that means), and I suspect you do it for the exact same reasons Behe does. Just saying...

No one seems to be able to explain the difference as to how you are more clear than him and so I suspect your delusions that you are (and your bonus delusion that Dawkins' is not clear) speaks for itself.

Are you trying to convey information? Obfuscate? Clarify? Or make a silly semantic point so you can win an imaginary argument in your head. Nobody calls a loaded dice "random" unless they want to confuse. And your example doesn't state otherwise although in your confirmation bias seeking brain I suppose it might.

 

[articulett]

I think people can judge for themselves as to who is clear and who is using words not to say anything and use that information in the future to put people on ignore, goad them, or seek them out for actual useful knowledge.

 

[articulett]

The more I read this thread the more I think creationists make really bad scientists-- or at least don't put them in charge of teaching natural selection. They do that religious thing where they feel and talk like they have some elite "higher truth" without saying anything... while much simpler folks say so much, so elequently and so comprehensively in far fewer words.

I think people can read the example of Behe above and Dawkins above and veer towards members who post in the manner that is clearest for them when it comes to actually wanting to understand something-- the others they can use for argumentation practice and/or ignore. IMO some members are very Behe-esque (and talking to Behe is like talking to grandpa who is beginning to show the signs of Alzheimer). The majority are more Dawkins-esque. I find the latter much more clear and honest. I hope creationist scientists go the way of the dinosaur. They add no useful knowledge to a most important, fascinating subject. Their aim is to make it harder to understand than it is, and I find that smarmy.

(and word up to Jimbob-- giving actual probabilities is clear-- this is old ground... and I ain't the only one who has traveled it with you.-- calling natural selection probabilistic--not so much. Unless your goal is to make a semantic point. I'll stick with Dawkins, et. al, thanks. Your insincere question is noted.)

You guys get lost in the semantics and forget what you are trying to communicate. You ask insincere questions you don't want answered. You don't understand each other and don't notice your inability to engage some of the more intelligent forum members in dialogue. You think more of your explanation than anyone else does or than the evidence warrants. I think it's a beautiful display as to why creationists make poor scientists. Even they don't even know what they are trying to say it seems. And it gives people a peek into what biology is up against. But the facts just keep being the facts no matter how much the creationists are sure they know them.

 

[articulett]

Most people don't think non-uniform or skewed distributions are non-random. Just listen to them use the word. They will say movement in monopoly is random, and it is non-uniform (7 being more likely than 2 or 12). They will call mutation random, but different mutations have different probabilities. I can think of at least two people who have given me the "uniform" definition of random in a discussion, only to later refer to non-uniform processes as random.

It seems that some people will state a definition that requires uniform distribution, but it seems incredibly few people actually use the word this way.

Walt

Which, as mentioned repeatedly, is why it's probably not the best word to use unless you define it pretty specifically. And yet creationists and apologists will do their damndest to describe evolution just that way. They'll do all sorts of semantic shenanigans and blathering to keep themselves and others from understanding natural selection. Random is a word. Natural selection is a fact. The best way to define it will evolve-- and it ain't going in the apologetics direction.

 

[articulett]

Since when has firing at random, from the hip, proved effective?

My hero!
It's funny because the blowhards always talk as if they think themselves clever-- I think it's so funny... they never say anything while insulting others and then crying when someone calls them an apologist. Their whole goal is to do everything possible to make natural selection as uncomprehensible as it seems to be to them from what I can tell. If they can relate it to randomness in any way they can do semantic acrobatics and infer that "evolution IS random" (whatever that means) and pretend they are being academically rigorous without actually conveying an iota of information to anyone. They turn conversations into semantic games again and again to avoid whatever the original goalpost was.

Sure, there are creationists who are scientists. And the apologists show why this spreads ignorance rather than understanding. If you can't understand what they are saying and you CAN understand most posters, Dawkins, Sagan, and/or general science articles-- the problem is the sender; not the receiver.
But they'll do their damndest to make you think it's you--"you just can't understand because you are hopelessly uninformed (insert eye roll or dumb emoticon). The more you ask for clarification or read theirwords, the more you lose the goal of the conversation (see Behe transcript)-- and the better you answer their insincere questions the more ungrateful they are.

 

[articulett]

No one ever asked for one. Will a web page do? I typed "loaded die" and "random" into google. Here's the second link.

http://www.brucesimmons.com/statistics243/Random Variables (TI).doc



It looks like a homework assignment that a Professor Simmons assigned for Statistics 243.

If that doesn't work, there are plenty of other links that say the same thing. A few of the early hits have some misinformation in them, though. They come from some yahoos discussing randomness on some forum or another.





You won't find the phrase "less random" in a probability textbook.



Are we? Or is that what you are assuming we are doing despite the fact that we say we are not.ome do. It seems to me that mijo has quoted a lot of them that say something else.

've been saying that in some cases it's a good word, and in some cases it's a bad word. It depends on circumstances and the audience. That doesn't sound like "in it's entirety" to me. How about you, mijo?

No peer reviewed paper is defining random as mijo is... nor do any of them say evolution IS random or that natural selection is random. Mijo looks for the word "stochastic processes" as a model for evolution and then uses that to say that "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random". If that's meaningful to you guys-- knock yourselves out. It's amazing that with your clear definitions that nobody is writing in peer reviewed journal speaking as you guys do. You have to twist the words to say that they could be saying just as you twist the definition of lying to make Behe seem honest. To me you are transparent. I've seen it a million times. If you don't want to be accused of sounding like a creationists-- quit using strawmen and semantics to explain a point. Quit pretending the lack of understanding is due to others' stupidity. Try clarity. If you did that, it might lessen my mean accusations in regards to your "explanations sounding like Behe".

And Mijo isn't saying anything... just like Behe. His argument boils down to this lame semantic nothingness:
1.Evolution is "random mutation plus natural selection".
2."Natural Selection is a stochastic process".
3."Therefore natural selection is random"-- and his final nothingness:
4."there is no evidence for evolution being non-random". Yes he said that... and no it really doesn't say anything... but when has he ever? It's Behe-esque blather at it's finest. Useless except to obfuscate further understanding.

You guys are just predictable. You turn the conversation into a meta conversation about randomness all so you can obfuscate you own understanding and everyone else's of natural selection and claim that it's unfair to say you sound like Behe.

Like Elind, I grow tired. I know the apologists can milk their egos forever with semantic nothingness (see kleinman)-- I find it fun to goad you into illustrating exactly how duplicitous and muddled sounding creationists/apologists are... I feel like I'm doing a public service by keeping your egos in check here instead of having you go out and inflict your hubris and ignorance on others. But the game is endless and omnipresent on the JREF forum. Woos will make smoke and long as you give them kindling. Kleinman is proof in spades.

And you will find all sorts of references to degrees of randomness in science.

Clearly a more sensible definition of randomness is required, one that does not contradict the intuitive concept of a ``patternless'' number. Such a definition has been devised only in the past 10 years. It does not consider the origin of a number but depends entirely on the characteristics of the sequence of digits. The new definition enables us to describe the properties of a random number more precisely than was formerly possible, and it establishes a hierarchy of degrees of randomness.

http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer.html
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/5/2083
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1262702

So you are probably wrong when you assert you won't find "less random" in a probabilities book. But it's not like you'd admit it if I illustrated exactly such a book, so I shan't waste my name. On planet Clarity there are degrees of randomness. Poker is not the same "random" as roulette (except to Mijo of course.)

Random is ambiguous word--that's why creationists like it so much... like the bible, it can be twisted to justify most any inanity.

Degrees of randomness are very important when discussing "statistical significance"-- it's not even necessary to use that word or any synonym when describing natural selection-- and yet the woo do... and their apologist buddies argue for their right to do so. And they all spin the happy world of their own superiority without saying anything at all.

 

[articulett]

Two pieces of advice to all. Don't go quail hunting with Dick Cheney, or duck hunting with articulett.

I will point out that nobody seems to be seeking your advice on anything. Just saying...