Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

And what you did again was to take one word in my sentence above out of context and twist into something that I did not say, as in your last reply to me.

What I said was the we use the word non-random to refer to non-uniform skewed distributions -- as in the loaded die. When the distribution is highly skewed we tend to think there is a reason behind it, some bias that causes skewing of the data. That is what we call non-random. I most emphatically did not say that non-uniform was the definition of non-random. Bell-shaped distributions are non-uniform but many people consider the cause of bell-shaped distributions random. You concentrated on the word non-uniform but the entire emphasis of my posts concerned the word 'skewed' and skewed data is generally non-uniform.

I don't mean to pick on you Wayne, but all of your recent replies lead me to believe that neither side here is listening to the other and only trying to gain-say.

I think this shows that our current language is inadequate to describe this process, and I am now more convinced that the introduction of mathematical terms into biology creates more confusion than it cures. I'll try to explain more later, but the technical, mathematical definition of 'random' is all wrong for biology.

 

[Meadmaker]

4."there is no evidence for evolution being non-random". Yes he said that... and no it really doesn't say anything...

Did he ever claim it did? You have read a great deal into his statements and then, based on what you read into it, accused him of a great deal, but that was all your imagination. It was not anything he actually said. If you were to limit your replies to arguments that were actually made, you could save a few pages of typing.

I want to make an offer, maybe a challenge would be a better word. In the last day you've written some huge posts saying all sorts of things I disagree with, many of them about me. I could try to respond to all of them,but the response would be more huge volumes of verbage, with more of the same in an ever expanding pattern.

Personally, I think I'm a pretty reasonable person, and of all the things you accuse me, the only one that comes close to fitting is "apologist", but you fling such huge quantities of words that it just is impossible for anyone, including you and me, to keep up. I would like an opportunity to present what I'm really saying in such a way that it is conceivable that it might be understood, perhaps by you, or perhaps by others reading this.

The challenge is to pick questions, or statements to which you would like a response, one at a time. Pick one. Either ask one question, or make one statement, and I'll respond. Then pick another. We can continue as long as neither of us tires of it. Feel free to continue going on and on and on about whatever you feel like, but just identify one thing at a time to which you would like an answer. What say you?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

First let me qualify what I said above.......

'Random' is not absolutely useless in biology; it simply extraordinarily misleading for most purposes. The technical definition does supply needed rigor (to a limited extent, though it is also fraught with problems). It is fine, obviously, for discussing probability distributions, but it is highly misleading for the general public and so poses a significant problem for teaching this material (as has been argued over and over).

'Random' has problems of its own. Random (the mathematical definition) is used for any process that produces a distribution. When we speak of groups in biology this includes everything. I can't think of a single biological process or entity that, in a group, can be described as non-random. The closest I can think off the top of my head is the all-or-none phenomenon of action potential firing in a neuron, but in a group of neurons there are often subtle differences in threshhold amongst the group. So, for a given stimulus, we would even need to describe the all-or-none opening of sodium channels in excitable membranes as random. While that provides some rigor for purposes of discussion, to describe the action potential as random simply sends the wrong message because you guys have not provided a technical term that can describe any shades of gray between a non-random output and a skewed distribution. 'Random' may provide some rigor to the discussion but it is exactly the wrong sort of rigor when discussing biological systems. Biology needs descriptors for the limiting conditions so that we can describe the processes, not a descriptor that simply means "look there is a probabilistic distribution".

You may say, "that's because biology lacks rigor and we are trying to supply it" and that's fine. The language of biology does lack rigor. If we want to introduce that use of 'random' into biology, that is also fine. But it needs to be clearly defined for all. And you need to also mention that it is only a term referring to probability distributions, so it isn't very useful. And it needs a whole host of supporting terms tht hlp to define and explain it -- words obtain their meaning within a language game, not in concrete fashion.

One other aspect of this term is that since it refers only to probability distributions and its opposite 'non-random' as you use it refers only to 'single outputs' or 'absence of probability distributions', then non-random essentially means 'determined'. We also use the word 'determined' to refer to causality. If we live in a deterministic universe (at the level of abstraction where evolution occurs), then the evolutionary process is fully determined. There are certainly clear causal links resulting in the organisms surrounding us (including us). So in that sense, we have a process that is both random and determined and one sense of the word 'detemined' means 'non-random', so this process is both random and non-random? The linguistc problems multiply because we do not have an absolutely precise language to describe any of this stuff. The same is true for discussions concerning consciousness and free-will. Language gets in the way and creates horrible misconceptions and makes teaching the concepts all that much harder.

Lastly, I think we need always keep in mind that 'random' is a bit of a garbage term if we really want to speak with rigor. 'Evolution' is an abstraction. The whole process is something we create in our minds as a category (I am not saying that none of this happens or that it is all an illusion) because we cannot see everything that transpires in our environment. Consequently it is very, very wrong to speak of 'random' as the basic fundamental state of evolution. So, let me try to explain what I mean. The reality, the facts, consist of organisms that fight for survival and reproduction. The real fact is an organism. It either lives or dies. It either leaves behind babies or not. We abstract the effect of large numbers of organisms all doing the same thing, see the alterations in gene frequency over time and call it evolution. That abstraction is necessarily 'random' by use of the technical definition (refers to probability distributions) because that view involves looking at a probability distribution and watching it. The whole thing is an abstraction, so 'random' is just one word we use to speak of this abstraction. The fundamental reality is organism tries to reproduce (more correctly gene tries to reproduce, and take away the word "try" since that implies teleology), not the abstraction of the group dynamic. I think it is wrong to speak of an abstract term applied to an abstract idea as fundamental to anything. If we want to be truly rigorous, then all of these ideas need to be communicated as well. And in that process, 'random' loses all meaning (except for its very restrictive meaning that doesn't help in any real world biological description). In one way of looking at it, to say 'evolution is random' , using the technical definition of 'random', is a tautology. From that vantage, 'random' is a completely useless term. If we define our terms rigorously, the word might have some utility in the future. For now, as a virtual stand-alone, it is confusing.

So, that's my take. I'm tired of all the squabbling, so I'm saying Adios.

 

[Walter Wayne]

And what you did again was to take one word in my sentence above out of context and twist into something that I did not say, as in your last reply to me.

What I said was the we use the word non-random to refer to non-uniform skewed distributions -- as in the loaded die. When the distribution is highly skewed we tend to think there is a reason behind it, some bias that causes skewing of the data. That is what we call non-random. I most emphatically did not say that non-uniform was the definition of non-random. Bell-shaped distributions are non-uniform but many people consider the cause of bell-shaped distributions random. You concentrated on the word non-uniform but the entire emphasis of my posts concerned the word 'skewed' and skewed data is generally non-uniform.

My bad, that is what I get at posting late at night. Half way through writing a post I forget some points I wanted to address.

I think what I said about non-uniform distributions applies equally well to skewed distributions. From a basic science class where you break the symmetry of the double-slit experiment to get a skewed pattern to a game of risk where the battle odds are biased towards the attacker, people willingly call the results random.

I have no idea why people call some skewed processes random, and others not. Part of it seems to be if there is some implied "cheating" or intervention in what the process is "meant" to be. People will call the outcome of the risk battle random even though the recognize the result favours one-side over the other, but weight the dice in any game to skew the results and they are unwilling to apply the same label.

Walt

Edited to add: In my experience in the real world individuals use the term inconsistently. I'm not implying you do as I haven't talked with you enough to know. Just an observation as to why it is generally difficult to talk about the topic.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think Ich's summary is pretty good, but I want to focus on a couple things he said. First, this line:

'Evolution' is an abstraction. The whole process is something we create in our minds as a category (I am not saying that none of this happens or that it is all an illusion) because we cannot see everything that transpires in our environment.

Let me say I agree with this completely. What I actually want to call attention to is the parenthetical comment in the middle.

Why would he feel that it is worthwhile to add that parenthetical comment? I think that it is based on a fear that someone might twist his words into something he never intended. Unfortunately, that fear is very well grounded in the experience on these threads. No reasonable person would read what he wrote and assume that he was trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, but, from experience, he is aware that that might happen.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why would he feel that it is worthwhile to add that parenthetical comment? I think that it is based on a fear that someone might twist his words into something he never intended. Unfortunately, that fear is very well grounded in the experience on these threads. No reasonable person would read what he wrote and assume that he was trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, but, from experience, he is aware that that might happen.

And not just by the good for nothing creationists who love to take quotes out of context.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My bad, that is what I get at posting late at night. Half way through writing a post I forget some points I wanted to address.

I think what I said about non-uniform distributions applies equally well to skewed distributions. From a basic science class where you break the symmetry of the double-slit experiment to get a skewed pattern to a game of risk where the battle odds are biased towards the attacker, people willingly call the results random.

I have no idea why people call some skewed processes random, and others not. Part of it seems to be if there is some implied "cheating" or intervention in what the process is "meant" to be. People will call the outcome of the risk battle random even though the recognize the result favours one-side over the other, but weight the dice in any game to skew the results and they are unwilling to apply the same label.

Walt

Edited to add: In my experience in the real world individuals use the term inconsistently. I'm not implying you do as I haven't talked with you enough to know. Just an observation as to why it is generally difficult to talk about the topic.

Wait a second, now. With the Risk example, we call the results of the individual dice rolls random because they are unconstrained. I don't know anyone who calls the fact that one person has three and the other person two dice random. We think it is OK because the rules are the same for both parties and everyone plays both attacker and defender. The slit example -- that is nothing like the typical Poisson distribution which can be highly skewed and which we were actually discussing as the example that best fits with natural selection.

I think we use the term non-random to refer to those distributions that are highly skewed toward one outcome. And if you take the long view of natural selection it is certainly highly skewed -- it's the way we moved from bacteria to Boy Scouts. You've got to involve some pretty serious skewing to move from the variability of bacteria to us. That is where I think the non-random aspect comes into this discussion. It is not the technical sense of non-random, but it does fit with the common usage.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think Ich's summary is pretty good, but I want to focus on a couple things he said. First, this line:



Let me say I agree with this completely. What I actually want to call attention to is the parenthetical comment in the middle.

Why would he feel that it is worthwhile to add that parenthetical comment? I think that it is based on a fear that someone might twist his words into something he never intended. Unfortunately, that fear is very well grounded in the experience on these threads. No reasonable person would read what he wrote and assume that he was trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, but, from experience, he is aware that that might happen.

Right on the money.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Right on the money.

So did you add the parenthetical to be misunderstood by creationists or "others" (i.e., not creationists)?

 

[articulett]

I think Ich's summary is pretty good, but I want to focus on a couple things he said. First, this line:



Let me say I agree with this completely. What I actually want to call attention to is the parenthetical comment in the middle.

Why would he feel that it is worthwhile to add that parenthetical comment? I think that it is based on a fear that someone might twist his words into something he never intended. Unfortunately, that fear is very well grounded in the experience on these threads. No reasonable person would read what he wrote and assume that he was trying to cast doubt on the theory of evolution, but, from experience, he is aware that that might happen.

Correct, reasonable people wouldn't read Ich and think that. The twisting tends to be done by unreasonable creationists using words like random and chance. Then people like Dawkins and Ich must use qualifiers so that it's not boiled down to the "tornado in a junkyard analogy".

In my perspective you make a lot more unsubstantiated claims than I ever do. As for the single question I'm asking, how does Mijo's explanation of evolution differ from Behe's?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So did you add the parenthetical to be misunderstood by creationists or "others" (i.e., not creationists)?

Dude, you forgot the smiley.

I can never tell from which direction the misunderstanding will arise. I have seen a lot of projection going on here lately, though -- from both sides and probably the middle too. I guess it's only natural, but I'm getting a little tired of it, and I can tell that you are tired of it too.

 

[Meadmaker]

As for the single question I'm asking, how does Mijo's explanation of evolution differ from Behe's?

Mijo says evolution can, and did, happen as a result of an undirected random process. Furthermore, he says that the nature of that random process is such that some form of evolution is almost inevitable, although the exact sorts of organisms that arise from that evolution cannot be predicted..


Behe says that the events required to produce life as we know it are too improbable to have occurred as a result of an undirected random process. Therefore, he claims, a designer must be necessary.

Next?

 

[jimbob]

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?

But as mijo and schneibester, and meadmaker are numerate, I say that I can understand what they are saying, and they have repeatedly said that they understand and agree with what I am saying.

If I was asked to explain the basic idea of evolution, I would say that offspring tend to resemble their parents, but have some differences. If these differences are beneficial the offspring would tend to have more offspring. These would tend to resemble their parents more than their grandparents, and those with the most "beneficial" traits would tend to have more offspring and so on over billions of generations since life appeared on Earth.

If you want to quantify the effect of a trait on the number of offspring, then you need to discuss a probabilistic natural selection.

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

You don't. You just don't insist on calling it probabilistic knowing that creationists (and Mijo) define random as "anything related to probabilities".

What do you mean? are you saying that you accept that natural selection is probabilistic, but avoid using the term?

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.

What part of evolution do I not understand?

That variabilities in the organism subtly load the dice in game of reproduction, so that over time "better" traits will evolve?

Articulett, do you disagree with my contention that when Dawkins talks about a selective advantage as small as 1:1000, he is implicitly using a probabilistic treatment?

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?

Who cares if evolution is "probabilistic" --why the obsession with words. Isn't clarity the goal, not semantics?

Clarity is the goal,and your statements are technically incorrect. I agree that "random selection" could be misleading to non-numerate people, but fail to see how probabilistic selection does this.

I use this to describe how you can use this basic assumption and some reaonable statements to answer questions such as those I mentioned before:

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, my understanding of natural selection allows me to answer these questions, how would you do this please?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I just want to repost this because it demonstrates that articulett know my stance on intelligent design and is deliberately misrepresenting me when she say that I support intelligent design or creationism (because we all they are the same thing) when I say evolution is random.

Note:

I would like to point out that in the Fossil and Evolution thread:

1. I retracted my OP
   
   

   Ben-
   
   Thank you for your clearly written explanation. I think that it, along with Dr. Adquate's information about the forams, clears up a lot of questions I had about evolutionary time frame. I will give a more complete explanation of my reasoning later. Suffice it to say, I retract the questions (in so far as I asked any) in my OP.
   
   That is not say that I do not still have problems with the way in which my question was dealt from both a pedagogical/androgogical and a general human courtesy standpoint, about both of which I will also post later.
   
   Nonetheless, I reiterate the apologies that I have already offered about my ill-conceived and ill-posed OP and retract what I said in it.
   
   Sincerely,
   
   Michael

2. I explicitly stated that I believed that no aspect of life was intelligently designed.
   
   

   To answer you directly, articulett: no, I don't believe that any aspect of life was intelligently designed.

3. articullet apologized for accusing me of being an intelligent design proponent.
   
   

   Then I apologize. I hope you read the links above so that you can see why others may be quick to judge. I hope you are as offended by the fossil article in the conservative newspaper as I was. Especially in light of the evidence regarding dinosaurs and chickens.

 

[jimbob]

Nobody would call this random. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274/
It looks designed... like the butterflies must have known to change-- but that's not what happened. Did the result come about randomly?-- no. Did it come about with probability-- uh, kind of-- but what a lame ass way to say it. The males carry the mutation because they were descended from one male who got a random mutation that just happened to fight of the parasite--and those who got it from him brought the population back with their descendants. THAT is natural selection. It's just mealy mouthed and useless to call THAT probabilistic or random. It doesn't explain what we observe. It doesn't convey natural selection. I've said it before and I'll say it again--that is why nobody will get anything from your explanations no matter how much you tell us it's super duper or technically correct. If you can't describe how we get this seeming "miracle" then you have a loser of a definition. If you need to squeeze the word random or something about probabilities into your story, you are obfuscating unnecessarily. Why?

But the process that that governed how that mutation spread was probabilistic. once it had spread to a sufficient proportion of the population, it was almost inevitiblethat it would spread further.

The individual butterfly survived, and with little mate competition, managed to breed, maybe having a lambda of (say) 5 breeding offspring as opposed to well under one. (there is only a 0.67% chance of the line dying out in the first generation, but lambda is high)


See my answer below as to why I dislike "nonrandom".

I dislike the use of nonrandom, mainly as (to me) it implies a predefined direction to the evolution of features, as against a progressive optimisation for a particular environment.

Articulett, do you see that this is a danger from your preferred definition.

Full post hidden below:

Originally Posted by jimbob
I dilsike the use of nonrandom, aminly as (to me) it implies a predefined direction to the evolution of features, as against a progressive optimisation for a particular environment.

This leads some (more reasonable, but scientifically illiterate) believers to think that the creator could have "known" that humanity, or something like humanity was inevitable from the initial conditions on Earth when it was created.

Optimisation is inevitable, the type of optimisation is not.

That is my main objection, and my most fundamental philosophical objection.

I actually would argue that the fundamental method of selection for any particular trait is probabilistic with respect to the trait, it is more than just the only way to model selection. With this one can actually work out how likely something is to spread.

The probabilistic nature of natural selection is also the biggest difference from artificial selection, where the selection efficiency is closer to 100% and not 1%. As the selection efficiency is in the low percentages, I would argue that this is important; if it were in ~80%+ it wouldn't matter whether it were random or nonrandom.

With the positive feedback loops of evolving species altering the ecology of their predators/prey/competitors, especially after extinction events, I would argue that the environment is random too.

Maybe nobody else has come across the type of believer that I mentioned above, but many English, Anglican Bishops* seem to fit into this category, another was my RE teacher at school.


*I don't know of many others, but I think that the C of E has made England very secular...

Of course in natural selection there is no explicit goal, unlike in artificial selection.

 

[jimbob]

Or again this summs my vunderstanding of the results of natural selection:
What is evolved?

Not the most effective replicators; any method of replicating where the average number reproducing offspring per parent is not less than one?

Elephants do not compete with preying mantises.

 

[articulett]

Mijo says evolution can, and did, happen as a result of an undirected random process. Furthermore, he says that the nature of that random process is such that some form of evolution is almost inevitable, although the exact sorts of organisms that arise from that evolution cannot be predicted..


Behe says that the events required to produce life as we know it are too improbable to have occurred as a result of an undirected random process. Therefore, he claims, a designer must be necessary.

Next?

Actually he hasn't said that. And when you ask if he agrees, he ignores the question or is oblique... or weird like Behe. Behe will concede the above as well if you back him into a corner and force him to say it. But like Mijo etc. his explanations aren't useful to anyone except those trying to confuse. And like Behe he asserts that it's Dawkins etc. that don't make sense. The majorit of the world find Dawkins and the long list above as being comprehendible-- I don't see anyone understanding evolution from the randomites muddled explanation. But, if you think you're making sense--try peer review. So far, there really isn't a peer reviewed paper speaking like you are. And it's off topic. Or maybe not... because it sounds like the randomites learned about evolution from creationists because they explain natural selection so muddle mouthed-- like Behe. Even the MNBC butterfly link was more clear-- and Dawkins is a thousand times more clear. And to me, it looks like it's because you guys are hung up on the randomness of evolution just like Behe-- and you fail to comprehend or convey understanding of the non-random aspects whenever you discuss the issue.

So of all the general explanations of evolution... what's the best you've heard? And does anyone agree? Does any peer reviewed scientist speak like you do or confirm that your way is explanatory. How is your (or Mijo's) emphasis on randomness and failure to address the non-randomness different than Behe?

You have his transcripts and the quote above. Behe asserts improbability, but when you explain evolution poorly it sounds improbable. You randomites explain it poorly from my perspective. But I don't need to convince anyone. I wasted a lot of time on Mijo's insincere question because I thought he actually wanted to understand why Dawkins et. al. feel that natural selection is the most important part of evolution-- and it is most decidedly not-random.

Random is a poor word choice. Your insistence on using it says something of your motives, no? Like religion, your definitions seem to work to make you feel superior without even being comprehensive. And like Behe, you just lose the point in your trying to tie it all to randomness and probabilities.

I'm just tired. What's your point? Your mad because articulett et. al. question your motives because you sound like Behe? What does this have to do with the OP. To me the randomites make the same mistake Behe is making as described by Dawkins --with or without saying anything in regards to whether such occurrences are probable or not. When you explain it poorly, it sounds improbably. When you understand natural selection it unlocks the understanding of evolution.

I am sticking with talk origins and their assertion that those who describe evolution as the randomites are so eager to do, don't understand natural selection. I think you prove the point.

 

[articulett]

Mijo says evolution can, and did, happen as a result of an undirected random process. Furthermore, he says that the nature of that random process is such that some form of evolution is almost inevitable, although the exact sorts of organisms that arise from that evolution cannot be predicted..


Behe says that the events required to produce life as we know it are too improbable to have occurred as a result of an undirected random process. Therefore, he claims, a designer must be necessary.

Next?

Actually he hasn't said that. And when you ask if he agrees, he ignores the question or is oblique... or weird like Behe. Behe will concede the above as well if you back him into a corner and force him to say it. But like Mijo etc. his explanations aren't useful to anyone except those trying to confuse. And like Behe he asserts that it's Dawkins etc. that don't make sense. The majorit of the world find Dawkins and the long list above as being comprehendible-- I don't see anyone understanding evolution from the randomites muddled explanation. But, if you think you're making sense--try peer review. So far, there really isn't a peer reviewed paper speaking like you are. And it's off topic. Or maybe not... because it sounds like the randomites learned about evolution from creationists because they explain natural selection so muddle mouthed-- like Behe. Even the MNBC butterfly link was more clear-- and Dawkins is a thousand times more clear. And to me, it looks like it's because you guys are hung up on the randomness of evolution just like Behe-- and you fail to comprehend or convey understanding of the non-random aspects whenever you discuss the issue.

So of all the general explanations of evolution... what's the best you've heard? And does anyone agree? Does any peer reviewed scientist speak like you do or confirm that your way is explanatory. How is your (or Mijo's) emphasis on randomness and failure to address the non-randomness different than Behe?

You have his transcripts and the quote above. Behe asserts improbability, but when you explain evolution poorly it sounds improbable. You randomites explain it poorly from my perspective. But I don't need to convince anyone. I wasted a lot of time on Mijo's insincere question because I thought he actually wanted to understand why Dawkins et. al. feel that natural selection is the most important part of evolution-- and it is most decidedly not-random.

Random is a poor word choice. Your insistence on using it says something of your motives, no? Like religion, your definitions seem to work to make you feel superior without even being comprehensive. And like Behe, you just lose the point in your trying to tie it all to randomness and probabilities.

I'm just tired. What's your point? Your mad because articulett et. al. question your motives because you sound like Behe? What does this have to do with the OP. To me the randomites make the same mistake Behe is making as described by Dawkins --with or without saying anything in regards to whether such occurrences are probable or not. When you explain it poorly, it sounds improbably. When you understand natural selection it unlocks the understanding of evolution.

I am sticking with talk origins and their assertion that those who describe evolution as the randomites are so eager to do, don't understand natural selection. I think you prove the point.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Some posts on this thread are repeatedly personalizing the argument. Please note rule 12, attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope

 

[Meadmaker]

How is your (or Mijo's) emphasis on randomness and failure to address the non-randomness different than Behe?

Lots of questions and assertions in your last post, but you put one of them in bold, so I'll address that one, under the assumption that you singled it out deliberately. Also, in this case, I won't attempt to speak for mijo, just for me.

It's a difficult question because it is rather loaded. I'll do my best to avoid the assumptions buried therein.

First, there's my emphasis on randomness. It is circumstantial. It grew out of my observation of Dawkins' diatribe against it in "The God Delusion". I thought he was overly emphatic about the point, as if he were saying that there was something more than a personal preference on the use of the word, that somehow it was important to avoid. I didn't see it that way, especially when, if taken literally, he was wrong. While one might see various descriptions as better or worse, he seemed to be going further than that, suggesting that the use of one description or another was vital in the description of the problem, and it seemed like it was becoming an US vs. THEM sort of issue.

As if to illustrate the point, someone started a thread specifically on the subject, mijo made a rather innocent comment in support of randomness and someone (look up who if you're interested) said "you don't understand science". It was a sort of confirmation of my suspicions expressed in the original thread. We had someone using randomness as a divisive issue. If you said "random", you were one of THEM. Mijo took offense, started his own thread. (Aside: If you sincerely took a lot of time trying to answer the question which you now believe to have been insincere, it isn't reflected in the first post you made in that thread. You accused mijo of being a creationist, although you noted that he denied it.)

So, the topic has been randomness, and that accounts for the emphasis.

Now, for the "failure" to address the non-randomness. I think that I have noted that in some circumstances, non-randomness would be better to emphasize than randomness. I think I've said that quite a few times, in fact. If I haven't elaborated, it's because, in these circumstances, it hasn't interested me. My interest has been in noting that "random" is an acceptable word and, whatever its faults may be, the use of it should not suggest creationist sympathies to anyone.

Finally, I do like "random" vs. "non-random", if I have to choose one or the other exclusively, because "non-random" to me has a connotation of some sort of guiding hand, which I wish to deemphasize. I think there is no guiding hand in evolution, and saying that it is random emphasizes that.


How is that different from Behe? Well, he would agree that random implies no guiding hand, so we are agreed up to that point, but then he claims that randomness is an inadquate solution. He insists that the random process (evolution) could not have been the cause of our existence and so there must be a non-random process (God). His emphasis on randomness goes hand in hand with his claim that randomness is inadequate.

There's the contrast. He emphasizes randomness so that he can say that randomness is not adequate, and God must be necessary. I emphasize randomness in order to emphasize that an unguided process is adequate, and God is unnecessary.

ETA:
Next?

And P.S. Jimbob asked a few questions I believe. I, too, would be interested in your answers.