Intelligent design's predictions

[T'ai Chi]

Nope, no one would be so silly as to suggest any sort of poking.

http://www.islamic-world.net/intldes.php

Well gee, let's find some scientist (n=1) with wacko beliefs, then graft that belief on to apply to all scientists (n = many).

Shouldn't be too hard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_..._possible_links_between_race_and_intelligence

Ok. According to your argument, scientists believe some people are less than others based on race.

 

[FireGarden]

On evolution being random.

Try this: http://math.hws.edu/xJava/GA/
Go to the world design menu, select for "plants" to grow in rows or along the bottom or whatever. Run the program. It involves random choices, but is the outcome random? Or do the "animals" evolve strategies to take advantage of the way the plants grow? I'm not saying I can predict which strategy will come about. Just that a strategy will come about. If you want to consider it random, then I give odds of almost 1

In the same way,
Evolution does not favour a particular outcome. A lot of people confuse Natural History (a specific example of life evolving) with evolution itself. The particular history of life on Earth is one history of many that were possible. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that predicts humanity -- in many possible natural histories, we would not exist.

So I would agree that the word "random" is not sufficient to describe evolution. At most, it is our natural history that was random. History could certianly have gone other ways. But evolution itself predicts that selection pressures will favour changes in the population that lead to greater success.

That is not random.
In the example above, you will see the "animals" get better (up to a point) generation after generation. Occasionally, there is a crash in the success of the population. You can change the chances of that by changing the odds of mutation. It's a small example, of course, with only one criteria for selection and only room for one population. but still a good illustration.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What I believe:

Evolution is a fact.

While there are many scientists who will say that evolution is non-random, I find that statement less than convincing when they go on to say that adaptation increases an organisms probability of survival, because the only self-consistent definition of "random" (i.e., the only definition that explain how a random variable can be conditional, non-uniformly distributed, exist on a bounded interval and still be called "random") is "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution". In other words, saying that evolution is non-random and then going on to describe it terms of probability is inherently contradictory. However, this by far does not mean that evolution cannot happen, because a large number of stochastic processes (are defined roughly as indexed sets of random variables) converge of expected values if the selection criteria remain relatively constant.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Try this: http://math.hws.edu/xJava/GA/
Go to the world design menu, select for "plants" to grow in rows or along the bottom or whatever. Run the program. It involves random choices, but is the outcome random?

Yes, it is random in every sense of the scientific meaning of the word (stochastic).

That's why words like

random
mutation
average
prediction
chance
probability
statistics
sometimes
tend to

etc.

are used in the description and the actual code.

No one is saying it is random in the sense that 'everything is random' or 'all inputs are random' or 'nothing deterministic goes on'. But when you have a non-trivial function (ie. one that must be capable of producing change/novelty we observe in real life) that is a function of random variables, the whole thing is technically a random variable.

Of course, one could argue we ultimately we see behavior rules designed into the program, or the actual code itself being designed.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ahh... one again, the ID camp proves that they and their positions are intellectually and ethically bankrupt. WONDERFUL!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Ahh... one again, the ID camp proves that they and their positions are intellectually and ethically bankrupt. WONDERFUL!

Would you care to explain how describing evolution as random is dishonest using examples from probability theory?

You seem to have missed the part where the dishonest thing is to claim that evolution cannot occur if it is random.

 

[cyborg]

I wish the people here who have no real clue about what it means for things to be non/deterministic would just stop talking about "random" and "stochastic" processes as if they really knew the relationships between these things.

 

[FireGarden]

Yes, it is random in every sense of the scientific meaning of the word (stochastic).

A particular outcome is random. Yes.
But you miss the distinction: Evolution isn't a particular outcome.

Evolution is a change in the frequency of traits within a population. The theory of evolution tells us how we expect things to change: selection pressures will tend to increase the frequency of traits that aid in competition.

No one is saying it is random in the sense that 'everything is random' or 'all inputs are random' or 'nothing deterministic goes on'. But when you have a non-trivial function (ie. one that must be capable of producing change/novelty we observe in real life) that is a function of random variables, the whole thing is technically a random variable.

What is the process by which things fall through a sieve? Whether a particular item falls through depends on: Being put in the sieve; meeting a hole as it moves randomly around the sieve; the size of the hole and the object. These you can choose from a random distribution.

But is the result of sieving random? No. We all know what is going to happen in the broad sense.

Evolution is like the result of sieving. It's not random in that sense. Because it is bringing order to the system.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The ones who just say 'designer' and not 'god'? By logic that allows for non-god designers. What they personally feel about it is irrelevant to the theory.

But we weren't talking about the theory, were we? We were talking about people who believe in ID. Find me a rational one who thinks the IDer is something other than god.

Also, how is it irrelevant to the theory, unless you agree that the theory is stagnant and no attempt shall be made to determine the source of the intelligent design? This is like Mendel determining that there is some mechanism for inheritance, and then everyone refusing to go any further to discover genes. I guess you'd say genes are irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

~~Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well gee, let's find some scientist (n=1) with wacko beliefs, then graft that belief on to apply to all scientists (n = many).

Who's talking about scientists, and who is talking about everyone holding the same belief? You said:

A better question is do you honestly believe that IDers hold that "god poked the genome".

Yes, some IDers do hold that god poked the genome. I gave you an example.

Oh look, a philosophical discussion of this very question:

http://www.faithaliveresources.org/origins/downloads/Origins_chap02_art06_two.pdf

And another, using a special word to name the situation where god chooses not to intervene:

http://www.faithaliveresources.org/origins/downloads/Origins_chap10_art16_kenosis.pdf

~~Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

A particular outcome is random. Yes.
But you miss the distinction: Evolution isn't a particular outcome.

So you're saying a function of random outcomes is not itself random. Aren't you trying to redefine what a stochastic process is.

What is the process by which things fall through a sieve? Whether a particular item falls through depends on: Being put in the sieve; meeting a hole as it moves randomly around the sieve; the size of the hole and the object. These you can choose from a random distribution.

But is the result of sieving random? No. We all know what is going to happen in the broad sense.

Well, again, you're just talking about selection. Of course, evolution is more than just selection. So evolution is random. Selection is not. Didn't we already cover this?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Who's talking about scientists, and who is talking about everyone holding the same belief?

Well, just an example of you extrapolating wildly, that's all.

 

[cyborg]

I wish the people here who have no real clue about what it means for things to be non/deterministic would just stop talking about "random" and "stochastic" processes as if they really knew the relationships between these things.

Because it needs to be repeated.

So you're saying a function of random outcomes is not itself random. Aren't you trying to redefine what a stochastic process is.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Find me a rational one who thinks the IDer is something other than god.

Antony Flew and David Berlinski come to mind as people who consider a designer can be something other than 'god'. Of course many explicitly say they allow for any designer to be something other than 'god'. But apparently by asking for examples of specific people, I can tell you don't get that a person's beliefs are irrelevant to what a theory says. Much like Watson's racist views on race and intelligence are irrelevant to the science.

Also, how is it irrelevant to the theory, unless you agree that the theory is stagnant and no attempt shall be made to determine the source of the intelligent design?

Well that's obvious enough, since science asks questions like 'if' design occured, not 'does the designer like long walks on the beach?'. If you personally equate ignoring things outside a theory to the theory being stagnant, well, that's your choice, but I dont see much good logic in it.

Maybe an identity other than 'higher intelligence' is somewhat unobtainable to know, kind of like knowing how everything started given a naturalistic worldview, eh?

 

[articulett]

Because it needs to be repeated.

I feel your pain. The least competent on a subject continually imagine themselves the most competent confusing those who might actually be capable of learning something from the many fine minds who can convey information well.

I am quite certain that I could develop an algorithm where you could not tell if you were talking to an actual "intelligent design proponent" or a chatterbot. The loops and digressions are always the same. They leave the conversation at the same point to digress on the same topics and ignore exactly the same things. They all sound like they kind of know what they are talking about (to an untrained ear), but the more you read, the more you realize that they are as full of crap as Behe and Dembski. They just aren't saying anything.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I feel your pain. The least competent on a subject continually imagine themselves the most competent confusing those who might actually be capable of learning something from the many fine minds who can convey information well.

I am quite certain that I could develop an algorithm where you could not tell if you were talking to an actual "intelligent design proponent" or a chatterbot. The loops and digressions are always the same. They leave the conversation at the same point to digress on the same topics and ignore exactly the same things. They all sound like they kind of know what they are talking about (to an untrained ear), but the more you read, the more you realize that they are as full of crap as Behe and Dembski. They just aren't saying anything.

You know, it's really interesting how articulett automatically assumes that people who disagree with her have nothing useful to say.

 

[articulett]

Would you care to explain how describing evolution as random is dishonest using examples from probability theory?

You seem to have missed the part where the dishonest thing is to claim that evolution cannot occur if it is random.

Say... why did you assume he was talking to you? Oopsy, did you give yourself away, here.

And who says I was talking about you? I assume that those who don't engage in actual conversation like T'ai have nothing useful to say... interesting that you see yourself in that category. You give yourself away by the stuff that you respond to that wasn't said to you.

Of course, I understand why you might think people are talking about you. As you can observe with T'ai-- when skeptics can't engage people, they lessen their frustration by talking about them. Those who are sure they have much to teach but are clueless about what they have to learn tend to invite this sort of reaction. They abuse the good will of people who might actually teach them something while elevating their own pompous ignorance with every oozing word of nothingness they blather.

Out of curiosity, how do you see your conversational skills and points being different than T'ai? How do you imagine this order and seeming design comes from this randomness you are so fond of focusing on? And what do you think of Dawkins review of Behe's book, and how is your position different than Behe's? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

You've been shown this multiple times... so what is your reason again for continuing to insist that it's informative to sum up evolution in regards to randomness while completely ignoring or failing to convey natural selection?

 

[Wowbagger]

You know, it's really interesting how articulett automatically assumes that people who disagree with her have nothing useful to say.

Well, in the cases of Behe and Dembski, she is right: Neither have anything useful to say.

However, does she seem to be a bit too quick with the accusations of "uselessness" and "creationist", lately.

I would encourage her to read entire posts, not just the first sentance or two, before jumping to such conclusions. (She might have originally accused you of being a "creationist", simply because you began one of your replies to me with "that's where you're wrong", and didn't read until the part where you state evolution is still viable.)

 

[FireGarden]

So you're saying a function of random outcomes is not itself random. Aren't you trying to redefine what a stochastic process is.

f(x)=(2+x)/(x+1)

Here's a process:
1) Let x be a random real number between 0 and 1
2) calculate f(x)
3) x := f(x)
4) goto 2

Is this process random?
Try it a few times.

I don't think the process is random. It involves a randomly chosen number. But the output is determined in the sense that it tends to something.

I'm sure a more complicated example could be given in which many random numbers were chosen, and which could lead to the output of a variety of things (rather than just a single number). In fact, I'm sure the evolution example I linked to does just that.

There is set of strategies that the animals can find to increase the number of plants they eat. Which of these strategies they find isn't determined. But I predict that if you run the program, then you will get one.

The program is more like a search algorithm than a random number generator. It's searching the space of possible "animals" and is programmed to find those that fit the selection criteria. That is why I don't regard it as random.

Similarly,
increase the range of x in step one above.
You will sometimes get -root(2) and sometimes +root(2)
Sometimes you will get a divide by zero error.

Which outcome? I agree that is random.
But the process by which you get to that outcome is not.

eta: except for the input, of course, which I included as part of the process -- steps 2,3,4 are not random.

eta2: search algorithm comparison.

 

[articulett]

Well, in the cases of Behe and Dembski, she is right: Neither have anything useful to say.

However, does she seem to be a bit too quick with the accusations of "uselessness" and "creationist", lately.

I would encourage her to read entire posts, not just the first sentance or two, before jumping to such conclusions. (She might have originally accused you of being a "creationist", simply because you began one of your replies to me with "that's where you're wrong", and didn't read until the part where you state evolution is still viable.)

I assure you-- I've read much more than you seem to have. I welcome anyone who has actually engaged him to the extent that I have-- such as Cyborg... to offer up their conclusions. By the way... Behe says evolution is viable too. I suggest you find the difference between what Mijo is saying and what Behe is saying... I've been looking and asking for some time. I suggest you ask yourself why Mijo has concluded that his mealy mouthed way of describing evolution is more correct and explanatory than Dawkins. Or not.

I have wrongly presumed people were NOT intelligent design proponents when they were-- but so far, I have not been wrong to the best of my knowledge in presuming people to be ID proponents when they are not. I will predict that Mijo's explanation of evolution and his focus on randomness will always be on par with Behes and always be far from Dawkins... and the closer you get to pinning him down, the more he'll digress and fling ad homs. He will always make subtle jabs towards Dawkins while doing a round about defense of Behe and other known ID supporters (like T'ai.) He isn't saying anything. You just think he is. Behe does the exact same thing. Really.

You are hearing what you want to hear from what he says. His goal is to sum up evolution as random just as Behe's is. His goal is to obfuscate understanding of natural selection-- this is THE KEY to understanding evolution and Behe and Mijo know it. So why do they obfuscate that understanding instead of conveying it eloquently like those who actually do explain evolution to others?

If anyone has found Mijo's input useful, please be sure to show me where. If anyone has found Mijo explanatory in explaining natural selection, please show me where. If Mijo has every asked a sincere question and been grateful and interested in the answer, please cut and paste. If Mijo's point is different than Behe's, show me where.

Wowbagger, you are telling me what you are concluding from what Behe says and what Mijo says. You are giving your interpretations. But just look at the words. And tell me how they differ. Tell me how T'ai differs. To say "it could all come about randomly" does not convey HOW it comes about. Mijo is arguing Behe's point that scientists think this all came about randomly. He has a whole thread where he does so. Even though he has repeatedly been show quotes where peer reviewed scientists most emphatically say "Natural Selection is NOT random"-- it is the de-randomizer-- the opposite of random. He has had many very smart people on this forum explain exactly why the way he says things is confusing in the SAME WAY as Behe... and yet he insists on summing up evolution exactly like Behe-- all the while pretending that he is saying something informative... something of value. To whom does this have value? The only value it has is to obscure how natural selection actually brings about order from entropy.

If you're fooled and desire to defend him... be by guest. I'm always open to evidence. But there are some people on this forum whom you can discuss things with forever and you aways think they are about to understand something-- but they never do... it's the Behe loop... soon you'll recognize it readily too... and maybe you'll want to warn others before they waste their time on the impervious. If there is anyone I have wrongly called an apologist or creationist (and by creationist, I mean "intelligent design" proponent) I am more than eager to see the evidence. What you call "evidence" that Mijo is not a proponent of "intelligent design" is on par with what Behe uses to try to pass himself off as scientifically knowledgeable. The printed words of both are readily available for comparison.

Once again-- if you have evidence that my terminology doesn't apply or that I am wrong-- here's a great forum for you display such evidence.