Intelligent design's predictions

[articulett]

Let me ask a question that might help clarify things, around here:

Mijo, do you accept that evoution is not only a fact, but a fact powerful enough to explain all of the wide variety of life around us, with no pre-existing entity or intelligence necessary?

I image that Michael Behe might also accept evolution as "fact", but he would also be inclined to think that it not powerful enough to explain everything, and therefore would also try to claim that something else must help in the designs.

Anwering my question should help clarify if you really are a creationist, or not. Not that your answer is really terribly relevant to the overall discussion of ID's "predictions". But, at least it will shut some of us up about it.

Ask him why he keeps on insisting on calling evolution random when he knows that is Behe's obfuscating trick and he has repeatedly been shown that Dawkins et. al. say that "natural selection" is NOT random... it is the opposite of random. Why is he beholden to creationist terminology and arguing for it being explanatory when the evidence is that it confuses more than it clarifies? Why does he think he is being more explanatory than Dawkins.

Ask him to explain how the order comes from the randomness in evolution and how he'd explain the falsity of the tornado/747 analogy using his "evolution is random" stance? Listen, I'd shut up the moment he stops sounding like Behe bleating that evolution is random... Or even if he spent one second thanking all the people on this forum and links provided showing him why it was misleading and uninformative and useless to describe evolution in the manner he does. Or anyone can show me evidence that he can convey understanding of natural selection or doesn't have Behe's obsession with evolutions randomness. His quotes are all over this board. Behe's quotes are everywhere. Heck, if Mijo said one thing that sounded more like something those who understand evolution would say and less like something Behe would say... I'd take it under consideration. But like Behe... he just never says anything. The more he says the less you understand. The only understanding you get is the same you have with Behe-- they both feel like it makes sense to focus on the randomness of evolution while sweeping natural selection under the rug. Darwin's critique of Behe's book sums up my critique with everything Mijo says.... http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...ns-reviews-Behes-lastest-book,Richard-Dawkins

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.

I'm begging you, mijo or anyone to show me the difference between what Mijo is saying and what Behe is saying.... or even to sum up what Mijo's point is... or Behe's. What do you think Behe's obsession with randomness means and why do you think Mijo's insistence on using the term is motivated by something different? Is Tai's? What person who is good at communicating the process of evolution to anyone sounds like they do? Why would they insist on referring to evolution as random after repeatedly being provided with quotes like the above showing that natural selection is NOT RANDOM and is the KEY for understanding how the appearance of design comes about.

If it quacks like Behe--

Notice the queries he avoids and answer obliquely... observe Behe's similarly cagey responses in the Dover transcript.

If I didn't want to be confused with a creationist, I'd be damn sure I didn't sound as muddled as they did and as obsessed with randomness and similar strawmen that they are. Either Mijo is an intelligent design proponent, or he has done nothing to distinguish himself one despite multiple opportunities to do so and multiple supposed requests for members of this forum to explain things to him (discontinuity in the fossil record... how evolution is not random, etc.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo, do you accept that evoution is not only a fact, but a fact powerful enough to explain all of the wide variety of life around us, with no pre-existing entity or intelligence necessary?

Yes, I think that evolution is powerful enough to explain the diversity of living organisms today and how such diversity came to be without invoking the supernatural. I just think that probability theory is also powerful enough to explain evolution and that it may be more fruitful to try to explain evolution in terms of probability theory, because, while the processes that govern natural selection may in fact and in principle be deterministic, it may be impossible in practice to obtain the level of accuracy in measurement to reveal such determinism. Thus these processes will always appear random. Additionally, it is to the benefit of evolutionary biology to try to explain how evolution can occur even if it is random. It just seems extremely dishonest to me to say that evolution by natural selection non-random but then describe it as operating on probabilities.

 

[articulett]

Let me ask a question that might help clarify things, around here:

Mijo, do you accept that evoution is not only a fact, but a fact powerful enough to explain all of the wide variety of life around us, with no pre-existing entity or intelligence necessary?

I image that Michael Behe might also accept evolution as "fact", but he would also be inclined to think that it not powerful enough to explain everything, and therefore would also try to claim that something else must help in the designs.

Anwering my question should help clarify if you really are a creationist, or not. Not that your answer is really terribly relevant to the overall discussion of ID's "predictions". But, at least it will shut some of us up about it.

BTW, I think Behe would dodge that question by inferring that it's possible... that he's not saying it's impossible... but he's concerned that it's highly unlikely that everything could be explained by randomness.

And this is true. But scientists don't use randomness to describe evolution. Creationists do. So Mijo, like Behe, will do something similar or ignore the question... he won't really say anything while inferring an answer that sounds like he's saying what you hope to hear. You can't pin a creationist down... they always have to have that wiggle room.

You can't address their claims because they never quite say anything. Really. Behe infers more than he says, but he seldom says anything that can be challenged.

You want him not to be a creationist... but what if he is? How would you know? Do you think you could pin Behe down on anything? He claims not to be a creationist either.
Are you worried about your ego... that you might have to apologize to me for seeing bad intentions on my part rather on the one with dishonest intent? Even you can be fooled.
I'm willing to examine all evidence to the contrary. I have been reading Mijo for some time. I'm not the only one who has reached this conclusion. His posts are all over this forum, and if the best you can come up with is what you've cut and pasted, then my opinion remains as is.

 

[articulett]

Additionally, it is to the benefit of evolutionary biology to try to explain how evolution can occur even if it is random. It just seems extremely dishonest to me to say that evolution by natural selection non-random but then describe it as operating on probabilities.

So, Dawkins is dishonest, and you, Mijo, are more honest-- correct? And, therefore Behe is more honest than Dawkins by focusing on the random aspects of evolution, right?-- because that explains things so much better. Or am I misperceiving your words? You have repeatedly stated that all those who refer to natural selection as nonrandom (including Dawkins) are being unclear while asserting that your way (which is very similar to Behe's) is more clear-- right? And since it's so fruitful to explain evolution in terms of probability theory- please do so...

And why the hell aren't any other current biologists describing things the way you are? Other than Behe, I mean.

Oh, and wowbagger... go ahead... sum up what it is you think he's saying (if anything) and how do you think Behe would answer that question differently. Dishonesty has many shades of obfuscation, you know. And how would you answer it. Compare. Contrast. Conclude.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Therein lies the inconsistency you can't argue that survival is non-deterministic and then say that it is non-random. "Random" and "deterministic" in their mathematical senses, which is how I have always used them (a courtesy which has not been returned by those who disagree with me), are antonyms and the only two possibilities for describing a particular aspect of a system. In other words, if a system is non-deterministic (in the mathematical sense), it is random (in the mathematical sense), and if a system is non-random (in the mathematical sense), it is deterministic (in the mathematical sense).

By the way, I have mentioned many times in previous discussion that I am not inextricably bound to "random" as the word that one must use to describe evolution. I do however think that it is important that emphasize the idea of randomness/stochasticity/probability/contingency when discussing evolution rather than insisting that evolution is non-random but somehow based probability.

Yes, yes, but that wasn't really the point. The point I asked was whether or not you thought we were arguing from the vantage of supposing phenotypic determinism as THE answer. At times that seems to be what you presuppose of those with whom you have argued.

As we have discussed before, everything is either indeterministic/acausal (uncertainty principle) or deterministic (at the level of discussion concerning evolution), or possibly some combination of the above.

It makes more sense at the level of discussion where evolution takes place to speak of it all as deterministic when considering the grand parade. Our ignorance being what it is, though, we speak of probabilities. But this makes all mention of 'randomness' merely a description of our ignorance and not a fundamental feature of the process.

Now that I have repeated myself for the nth time, I'm pulling out of this discussion before it circles out of control.

 

[articulett]

Y
Now that I have repeated myself for the nth time, I'm pulling out of this discussion before it circles out of control.

Me too... been there; done that. I really don't like this "evolution is random" obfuscation-- like Dawkins, I feel like slapping it down wherever I see it-- because it is a good technique for brainwashing the faithful... and I see it again and again. (Clearly T'ai is evidence of the brain damage it can induce...) It's the very best technique the ID crowd has for keeping people ignorant and thus in need of their god for an explanation.

But I'm sure the best explanations will evolve alongside the best creationist obfuscation techniques with or without my input.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, Dawkins is dishonest, and you, Mijo, are more honest-- correct? And, therefore Behe is more honest than Dawkins by focusing on the random aspects of evolution, right?-- because that explains things so much better. Or am I misperceiving your words? You have repeatedly stated that all those who refer to natural selection as nonrandom (including Dawkins) are being unclear while asserting that your way (which is very similar to Behe's) is more clear-- right? And since it's so fruitful to explain evolution in terms of probability theory- please do so...

And why the hell aren't any other current biologists describing things the way you are? Other than Behe, I mean.

Oh, and wowbagger... go ahead... sum up what it is you think he's saying (if anything.)

You are most definitely "misperceiving" my words, articulett (and I dare say trying to discredit me by doing so). I do believe that it is dishonest to insist the evolution is non-random and then describe it in terms of probabilities of survival, but I don't believe I have said that Behe explains evolution any better. In fact I have said that insisting that evolution cannot occur because it is random is equally, if not more dishonest, that than the hand-wavy non-random description.

If you want a description of evolution in terms of probability, you might try this.

 

[articulett]

That isn't a description of evolution in terms of probability... that is a model where natural selection is included in the variable. I worked as a genetic counselor for many years... I am well aware of how probability is used in evolution. But no scientist I know equates the word random with "anything having to do with probability". That's because it's a useless definition for conveying understanding. Only you do that. And you do that so you can conclude that evolution is "random"... your word of obsession... just like Behe's. You cannot convey or explain how the randomness leads to the appearance of design-- because you are stuck on the word random.

But I've seen you run around this semantic circle a hundred times... just like Behe... let wowbagger chase you... he's one of the few that hasn't caught on yet... so you have yourself a fun little audience to bleat your behe-esque nothingness. I am sure someone will inform me via e-mail if you say anything useful that clarifies understanding for them.

I find it much more fruitful to talk about creationists than to try and talk to them. Your dialogues sound as muddled as Behe and Kleinman and Tai' dialogues. They go nowhere... they say nothing... they digress while you guys avoid being pinned down to anything. You have no point. You talk so that you can keep boosting up this notion in your head that you are right about something. Just like Behe. But damned if any of the rest of us know what it is.

(So how is that formula you linked more "fruitful" than Dawkins description again? And for what exactly?)

 

[qayak]

I do believe that it is dishonest to insist the evolution is non-random and then describe it in terms of probabilities of survival . . .

Why? Probability of survival does not = Random.

 

[mijopaalmc]

That isn't a description of evolution in terms of probability... that is a model where natural selection is included in the variable. I worked as a genetic counselor for many years... I am well aware of how probability is used in evolution. But no scientist I know equates the word random with "anything having to do with probability". That's because it's a useless definition for conveying understanding. Only you do that. And you do that so you can conclude that evolution is "random"... your word of obsession... just like Behe's. You cannot convey or explain how the randomness leads to the appearance of design-- because you are stuck on the word random.

What can I say?

This is the same old crap that I have been getting from you for months now. You dismiss my sources without explanation, which implies you haven't even read them. You also insist on dismissing my definition because you claim they don't convey meaning, which implies that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Will you please address my arguments?

 

[articulett]

BTW, Behe doesn't insist that evolution can't occur... he does what you do... he focuses on random and bluster so that natural selection is not understood. This way the amazing design seems "unlikely" to have occurred without a purpose... He concedes a lot of things about evolution... including common descent... it's the part he glosses over that infers that scientists think this all happened randomly-- a misstaement at best. And that is what you are doing. Even if others haven't quite caught on yet.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why? Probability of survival does not = Random.

The probability may not be random but the probability distribution of individuals' survivals is what makes natural selection a stochastic process.

 

[articulett]

What can I say?

This is the same old crap that I have been getting from you for months now. You dismiss my sources without explanation, which implies you haven't even read them. You also insist on dismissing my definition because you claim they don't convey meaning, which implies that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Will you please address my arguments?

Like you dismissed the peer reviewed paper you insincerely asked for in an OP which said Natural selection is NONRANDOM? Like you dismissed every peer reviewed article and every expert which said as much....which said that the way you were saying things was unclear and misleading and not explanatory? What is your argument again. I your argument has been addressed ad nauseum by many-- just like your supposed curiosity about discontinuity in the fossil record-- but all the illustrations and explaining and links and perusal of your arguments and requests lead you right back to the very same conclusion you have had since the beginning. You cannot learn. You are exactly like Behe. You dodge and weave and never ever say anything while elevating yourself above those who might teach you something and dissing those who call you on your dishonesty. Instead of just being honest or clear. You pretend to be interested in evolution and the way it's understood and the best way to describe it-- but you have no interest in anything of the sort unless you can twist it to say whatever it is you are trying to assert. Exactly like Behe. Exactly. Behe would concede the stuff that you concede. There is no difference... except that he's upfront about implying a designer... and you're oblique about it... you do it by describing evolution so poorly that a designer seems more likely than randomness. And perhaps it is. But it's NOT randomness that defines evolution. It's natural selection.... this has been told to you again and again and again. But you think Dawkins is dishonest and you are saying something useful.

 

[articulett]

The probability may not be random but the probability distribution of individuals' survivals is what makes natural selection a stochastic process.

Yes... but, though a stochastic process is sometimes called a random process-- no one but mijo thinks the process itself is random. It has random inputs. The process is not random. But to Mijo-- if he can tie any part of the process to probabilities or the word random and thus conclude that it's random-- he will. As will Behe. Q. E. D. Why? Not because "it's more fruitful"-- but because it's more obfuscating. It makes evolution sound confusing and impossible-- Natural selection... a most decidedly nonrandom process unlocks the key to understanding evolution. And those who describe it well are the people who convey that understanding. That sure as hell aren't those running about to describe evolution in terms of randomness or probability or whatever blustery nothingness Mijo is pretending. Really. Behe can and does make similar arguments for his attachment to the term. Q. E. D.

 

[articulett]

No, Mijo... I'm not going to address your arguments... for the same reason I'm loathe to listen to Behe. You haven't said anything. You have no ability to learn or engage in dialogue on the topic. You imagine yourself more knowledgeable than you are. You use the attention to make yourself feel like Behe-- worthy of an audience. Find someone else who thinks you are as clear and explanatory as you imagine yourself to be. I find you and your techniques indestinguishible from Behe. And I consider Behe a very dishonest man.

 

[Wowbagger]

In Response to mijopaalmc and Others, regarding "Random" in Evolution:

There are a couple of ways we can look at this issue. On one hand, there is The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principal. Since we can not know everything in exact detail, beyond a specific level of precision, you could try to argue that everything is ultimately dependant on probablility.

However, above that level of detail, all the probabilities "smear out", so that science is able to make exacting predictions, afterall. For things that matter in our everyday lives, it is usually quite safe to "ignore" the Uncertainty Principal.

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is one such thing. Its study does NOT ultimately rely on probability, in reality. However, since we can never know the values of every single variable that goes into it, (it is, in other words, an application of "chaos theory"), we have to make comprimises in our assessments.

We use probabilty when studying evolution, as one such comprimise. It is a tool we have to resort to using, since the math would be too difficult for even our greatest computers, otherwise.

For example, mutations do not really occur randomly. They all have causes: perhaps a photon from the sun bumped into an atom, in a certain way, to cause a molecule to form a different protein than it would otherwise, etc.
But, it is clearly beyond reason to track all those different things. Therefore, opting for probability is just something we gotta do to at least make some progress in this endeavor.

I choose to describe evolution without any sense of "random" as much as possible, in a futile attempt to try to make all this clear. Others use "random" in different ways, to describe different parts of evolution - most likely because it is just easier to say it that way, than to get into the whole "photon from the sun" rigamarole. But, I hope everyone now realizes that "random" is just not really part of the process Evolution takes, in reality.


My responses to Articulett, in particular, are coming next.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In other words, if a system is non-deterministic (in the mathematical sense), it is random (in the mathematical sense), and if a system is non-random (in the mathematical sense), it is deterministic (in the mathematical sense).

And the mathematical sense is just about as confusing as it could possibly be to the layman. The layman is obliged to come to the conclusion either that absolutely everything is random, or that scientists are wrong in their current belief that there are random quantum events and it will eventually come to light that nothing whatsoever is random. Since it is quite unlikely that we will determine the cause of every event in the universe, that leaves the poor layman with a random universe.

We would do these folks a service by explaining what it is that appears to be random, what is deterministic, and what it means for something to be nonrandom with respect to something else. It would also help to explain that an event with two outcomes labeled as random does not mean the probabilities are necessarily 50/50.

I despair of ever understanding why this hair splitting is so important to you.

~~ Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Like you dismissed the peer reviewed paper you insincerely asked for in an OP which said Natural selection is NONRANDOM?

Hmmm...I remember that very same article saying:

This is how natural selection works: Individuals that have beneficial variations, that is, variations that improve their probability of survival and reproduction, leave more descendants than individuals of the same species that have less beneficial variations. The beneficial variations will consequently increase in frequency over the generations; less beneficial or harmful variations will be eliminated from the species. Eventually, all individuals of the species will have the beneficial features; new features will arise over eons of time.

Natural selection accounts for the ‘‘design’’ of organisms because adaptive variations tend to increase the probability of survival and reproduction of their carriers at the expense of maladaptive, or less adaptive, variations.

The fossil record shows that life has evolved in a haphazard fashion.

Seems that Ayala is a bit confused about what he means when he says evolution is non-random.

 

[qayak]

Seems that Ayala is a bit confused about what he means when he says evolution is non-random.

Haphazard does not = random.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Haphazard does not = random.

What about the first two quotes?