Intelligent design's predictions

[mijopaalmc]

Haphazard does not = random.

Really?

You might want to check a thesaurus.

 

[joobz]

Ugh.

I still don't understand the whole point to this line of argument.
Evolution is random. So is diffusion, chemical reactions, radioactive decay,... who cares. that doesn't make it on any of them any less observable and real.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Ugh.

I still don't understand the whole point to this line of argument.
Evolution is random. So is diffusion, chemical reactions, radioactive decay,... who cares. that doesn't make it on any of them any less observable and real.

That was sorta my point. The fact that evolution is random doesn't effect the fact that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor and that the immense adaptive radiation observed today occurred without the intervention a supernatural being.

Still think I'm a creationist or intelligent design proponent, articulett?

 

[Wowbagger]

It just seems extremely dishonest to me to say that evolution by natural selection non-random but then describe it as operating on probabilities.

The process is really non-random, but we can not assess the whole process. We have to resort to using probability to study it. That is not dishonesty. That is admiting our limitations.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The process is really non-random, but we can not assess the whole process. We have to resort to using probability to study it. That is not dishonesty. That is admiting our limitations.

How can you be so sure that it is non-random?

 

[Wowbagger]

In Response to Articulett

I am not here to defend mijopaalmc's statements. But, I still think it is unfair to label him* as a "creationist". He might me some sort of other "woo", or maybe his understanding of the issues are limited at the moment; but there is nothing in his writings, here, that indicate he is a creationist.

(*apologies if I got her gender wrong.)

This was mijo's response to my question:

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.

His understanding of evolution might be flawed or incomplete or whatever. But, he does not seem to be resorting to any of the cheaper ideas that Behe would. He agrees that "evolution is powerful enough to explain the diversity of living organisms today and how such diversity came to be without invoking the supernatural." (Emphasis mine.)

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.

I'll bet Behe would do just that.

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.

Ah, but that is not what Mijo did. He answered the question as I might have, several years ago, before I was able to float above all this "confusion". And, I was never a creationist.

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.

We could pin Behe down for insisting that the very idea of an "Intelligent Designer" has a basis in science, when we know it could not possibly be tested by science.
I find no such way to "pin" mijo the same way.

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.

Honestly, mijo's identity is not important enough to me to waste time reading his other posts, in other threads. So, I could very well be wrong. If I am, and if it is not too much trouble, perhaps you can paste in a paragraph or two, of his, that makes it clear that he is, in fact, a creationist, and not someone who is merely limited in his full knowledge of evolution.

My ego and I parted ways years ago. I am perfectly willing to apologize to you, arti, if you can show me such a statement from him.

Ask him why he keeps on insisting on calling evolution random when he knows that is Behe's obfuscating trick

[snipped for space]

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?

I don't think he's using the word "random" the same way as Behe's trick.

Listen, I'd shut up the moment he stops sounding like Behe bleating that evolution is random...
[snipped for space]

Maybe mijo is not perfect in his communication skills. He might be "bleating", perhaps, but nothing on this thread indicates he thinks there is the possability of a super-natural designer. His bleating seems to indicate that he does not understand why we study evolution using probability, and sometimes use the word "random", when we also claim there is no probability or randomness.

He has spotted what he thinks in a dishonest disconnect. I am trying to demonstrate how it is not so.

You do not have to address mijo's arguments, if you don't like him. But,
It is wasting people's time when you choose to spit accusations, instead of offering explanations.

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.

My attempt to summarize Mijo: "Evolution is a fact, and no supernatural stuff is required. But, if evolution is not random, why do you guys keep using probability and stuff to study it?! That sounds dishonest to me!"

My attempt to summarize Behe: "Evolution has helped us understand life for a long time. But, I think it is time we put aside that old idea, for something more powerful. Since no one can ever figure out how all complex-looking life forms could have emerged from evolution, we should seriously consider the idea that there was an Intelligent Designer."

My attempt to summarize T'ai (just for kicks): "I have no opinions of my own. I'm just gonna parrot what other people say, that I find interesting."

If it quacks like Behe--

Hence, mijo does not quite quack like Behe.

Superficially, the sounds might be similar, but that is merely the convergent behavior of one who might not be the best at getting their ideas across. In other words: Different evolutionary paths, but similar shaped results. Like a lagomorph and a mouse.

Now, I still love ya, arti. Don't get me wrong. But, this would not be the first time you called someone a "creationist", who wasn't:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3082603#post3082603

 

[Wowbagger]

How can you be so sure that it is non-random?

I try to explain that in post #96 of this thread, the one with the title "In Response to mijopaalmc and Others, regarding "Random" in Evolution".

As far as we can tell, within the limits of our current understanding of physics, "randomness" in reality, could only reasonably apply to sub-atomic ("quantum") levels, where the Uncertainty Principal comes into play.

Beyond that level, the probabilities "smear out", meaning they become unimportant, because the behavior of the whole will take on what is most probable in its collective of atoms, etc.

We can be reasonably sure Evolution is not random, because the process is irrelevant to the uncertainties that take place at the quantum level.

 

[qayak]

Really?

You might want to check a thesaurus.

Haphazard also means careless.

Random means that something lacks any definitive plan or prearranged order. Evolution does not fit the description. It has both a definative plan and a prearranged order, we just have difficulty seeing it. However, our inability to see doesn't make the process random.

As far as probability goes, that is just the easiest way for us to understand it. Chaos theory has pretty much become a part of all these types of processes because they are so complex and because, in some instances, we will never be able to know exatly what the prearranged conditions are/were or what the definitive plan is.

Weather is much the same. You can't tell me that weather is random. Well . . . you could but it wouldn't be true either.

 

[Wowbagger]

You know, it's like trying to predict the weather. No one ever says the weather is "random". We understand that every aspect of it has a cause. But, since there are just so many inputs we could possibly stuff into our computers, meteorologists must resort to probability, when trying to predict the weather, in a reasonable manner.

 

[joobz]

Haphazard also means careless.

Random means that something lacks any definitive plan or prearranged order. Evolution does not fit the description. It has both a definative plan and a prearranged order, we just have difficulty seeing it.

Oooo, I would not describe it as such. There is no "plan" to it. A plan assumes a planner, much like design assumes designer.

Although you are correct to say our inability to predict everything doesn't mean that there aren't (at some level) simple steps that can be described deterministically. But this is true about everything we label as "random" a dice roll, a coin flip, or anything. As such, to minimize what random means in the sense of evolution, minimizes all "random" processes.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You know, it's like trying to predict the weather. No one ever says the weather is "random". We understand that every aspect of it has a cause. But, since there are just so many inputs we could possibly stuff into our computers, meteorologists must resort to probability, when trying to predict the weather, in a reasonable manner.

Except the initial conditions (i.e., the phenotype) don't fully determine the outcome in evolution. In the case of the weather, if we were able to measure the initial conditions to an arbitrary degree of precision and the calculations be performed with arbitrary precision, we would be able to predict the weather with arbitrary accuracy.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Except the initial conditions (i.e., the phenotype) don't fully determine the outcome in evolution. In the case of the weather, if we were able to measure the initial conditions to an arbitrary degree of precision and the calculations be performed with arbitrary precision, we would be able to predict the weather with arbitrary accuracy.

Leaving aside sub-atomic weirdness, why can't the same be said of evolution?

 

[Wowbagger]

Except the initial conditions (i.e., the phenotype) don't fully determine the outcome in evolution. In the case of the weather, if we were able to measure the initial conditions to an arbitrary degree of precision and the calculations be performed with arbitrary precision, we would be able to predict the weather with arbitrary accuracy.

The phenotypes are not the only set of initial conditions. The fitness landscape is also another source of initial conditions.

If we were able to measure all of the initial conditions (phenotypes, landscapes, possibly others) with arbitrary degree of precision, we would be able to predict evolution with arbitrary accuracy.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wowbagger-

Probably the most "damning" evidence of my supposed creationism is the first thread I authored on these boards: Fossil and Evolution. The question in the OP was about representations of evolution in the popular media and how they portray evolution as a continuous "morph" from one form to another. My confusion lay in the fact that if time were linearly scaled so that the entire life time of the Earth fit into one day, the time between two fossil forms (roughly 2 seconds) would make any animation look choppy. I wasn't questioning the basis of evolution, but articulett insisted that I was. I retracted my OP, explained that I wasn't an intelligent design propoent (which articulett apologized for calling me), and elaborated on my original confusion.

 

[qayak]

Oooo, I would not describe it as such. There is no "plan" to it. A plan assumes a planner, much like design assumes designer.

No, a plan does not assume a planner. A plan is a detailed scheme, method, etc. for obtaining an objective. There is nothing that says consciousness must be involved and there is nothing that says it is ruled out.

 

[joobz]

No, a plan does not assume a planner. A plan is a detailed scheme, method, etc. for obtaining an objective. There is nothing that says consciousness must be involved and there is nothing that says it is ruled out.

Feel free to use the word however you wish. It's just a sloppy.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Leaving aside sub-atomic weirdness, why can't the same be said of evolution?

The phenotypes are not the only set of initial conditions. The fitness landscape is also another source of initial conditions.

If we were able to measure all of the initial conditions (phenotypes, landscapes, possibly others) with arbitrary degree of precision, we would be able to predict evolution with arbitrary accuracy.

I guess it has to do with how I understand (or don't understand) the gene as the unit of selection.

Also, fitness is most often defined as the mean over a class of individual, giving inherently statistical properties.

 

[Wowbagger]

I guess it has to do with how I understand (or don't understand) the gene as the unit of selection.

Possibly. You might want to read The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, if you have not done so, already.

Also, fitness is most often defined as the mean over a class of individual, giving inherently statistical properties.

The "mean" is merely a shortcut we must resort to using, simply because placing all of the individual values is usually not possible with our limits of computation. (although sometimes it is possible, depending on what you're doing)

So, don't feel bad. This stuff is rather non-intuitive. It is often difficult to separate the "model" of science from the "reality" that it tries to describe.
I'm sure most of the posters here, including me, have had the same problem.

 

[articulett]

The way most biologists explain evolution is random (more or less) mutation coupled with non-random selection over time.

No one who teaches or conveys understanding about evolution to others emphasizes the randomness over the way natural selection over time selects from the randomness to achieve what seems to be design. No biologist refers to natural selection as random--because its not... and it's misleading to say it is. A biologist would say the mutation was random... but the fact that it was incorporated widely in the genome was not. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274/ Even the non-experts at MSNBC describe natural selection and how evolution works better than Behe or Mijo or Tai'. All of them sound like they think they know more than those they might actually learn from.

As Dawkins reiterates --the powerful explanatory of Darwins theory was natural selection-- not randomness.

Yes, Mijo-- I am certain of what you are. You are one of those people who puts down others who might teach you something about evolution while pretending to understand more than you do. You are one of those people like Behe who is obsessed with characterizing evolution as random no matter how unclear that might be or how many peer reviewed papers say that natural selection is NOT random. Any one who thinks that evolutionary biologists think life came about randomly, most certainly do not understand evolution nor what biologists actually think nor natural selection nor have they read and understood the Selfish Gene. The process of evolution contains randomness... the results are most certainly NOT random. They are the result of preferentially selected mutations and the replicators they code for.

You are one of those people who never actually says anything... who pretends to be curious about a topic, but never actually shows any interest in having the questions you ask answered. They are all smarmy rhetorical questions designed to infer some knowledge on your part or to dis evolution or dawkins or someone else who is critical of religion. It's all you ever do or say in every post. You pretend to be curious or knowledgeable or insightful-- But you never ever say anything. You are just like Behe-- you criticize those who know more than you while pretending to be an expert on something you cannot convey coherently. Your blather is indistinguishable from Behe's-- as is your obsessional need to declare evolution random.

Feel free to have simulating discussions with those who want to play your game. Until you can convey how complexity and design comes from the randomness you have an explanation exactly as "fruitful" as Behe's-- and indistinguishable from the creationists canard.

 

[articulett]

Why? Probability of survival does not = Random.

Mijo defines random as "anything having to do with probabilities" he determines that a process is random if it contains anything random in it. Therefore, per his self selected definition and semantic vagaries evolution IS random however vague and misleading that may be. And nothing can and will change that fact. In his head this is an academically rigorous and "fruitful" definition despite the fact that no peer reviewed papers are refer to natural selection as random and none are as vague as him and most don't even say what he imagines they are saying. And if his definition is so fruitful and Dawkins so dishonest, you'd think they'd be using his definition (which is indistinguishable from Behe's) rather than Dawkins and Darwin to convey understanding. But, you know, Mijo knows better than everyone else-- so he keeps telling us.