Intelligent design's predictions

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

So how do you incorporate the fact that all the people you cite make explicit reference to probability in their description of natural selection and that there is a large body of research that models evolution as a stochastic process and originates with the "fathers" of the Modern Synthesis?

 

[articulett]

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

~~ Paul

I suggest that it's for the same reason Behe hyperfocuses on randomness.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Here are two reputable scientists who emphasize the influence of randomness (chance or stochasticity) in their descriptions of evolution:


Stochastic Processes and the Distribution of Gene Frequencies under Natural Selection

Evolution is a stochastic process of change in gene frequencies in natural populations. Since the populations making up a species consist of many individuals and since evolution extends over enormous periods of time, laws which govern the process of change are inevitably "statistical". In this sense the genetical theory of evolution, as R. A. Fisher (1922) suggests, is comparable to the theory of gases. This analogy can be pushed further: Instead of considering populations as aggregates of genes, we find it more convenient to consider populations as aggregates of gene frequencies (or ratios). This is similar to the situation in physics where the specification of theory population of velocities is more useful than that of the population of particles (Fisher, 1953). As far as I know, this fruitful idea was first incorporated into the theory of population genetics by Fisher in his 1922 paper, which lead to a later elaboration (Fisher 1930a).

Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution

In every generation better-adapted individuals will bee more likely to survive and reproduce. This is only a tendency, however, not a deterministic rule. A snail living in an English hedgerow is less likely to be eaten of its shell is striped rather than plain.But it is not very likely to survive in any case; it may be eaten by a shrew, or die of heatstroke or starvation; it may even be eaten by a bird after all. Selection is a process of sampling. The variation of characters among individuals ensures that the sample that reproduces is a biased sample of the population as a whole, but its composition cannot be precisely specified in advance. But there is nobody responsible for selecting snail at the bottom of hedgerow, and no individuals, no matter how well-endowed has any guarantee of success, only a greater or lesser chance. Richard Lewontin once prefaced a lecture on this topic with a quote from Ecclesiastes: the race is not alway to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but time and chance happen to both.

The nature of evolution as sampling implies that evolution is a stochastic process that is subject to sampling error. The composition of a population at any point in time will be determined by three factors. One is historical, the composition of the generation from which it descends. The second is selection, which tends to increase some kinds of individual and decrease others. The third is chance. The actual composition of the population will inevitably differ from what we expected based on descent and selection, because the life of each individual is a historically unique succession of events who eventual outcome is influenced by a multitude of factors. The next generation is formed in a stochastic, or probabilistic, fashion from the success and failure of many such lives. We may be able to predict its average properties with some assurance, but its composition will fluctuate to a greater or lesser extent in ways we cannot predict or account for.

 

[articulett]

articulett-

So how do you incorporate the fact that all the people you cite make explicit reference to probability in their description of natural selection and that there is a large body of research that models evolution as a stochastic process and originates with the "fathers" of the Modern Synthesis?

How do you continually manage to use words to say nothing at all? How do you continually extrapolate any mention of probabilities with "proof" that it makes some sort of sense to call evolution random? Nobody but you is calling a stochastic process itself random. It contains random variables... only you are calling the process random. A markov process is a stochastic process it contains random variable and thus some people might call it a random process. Nobody but you calls a markov process random. In mijo head where evolution must be described as random-- all semantics must lead to randomness. So you do a search for stochastic and probability and random and then quote the links and pretend that they are saying that evolution is random... like you are. And you pretend that this is fruitful-- despite the fact that nobody but you uses an explanation of evolution as murky as yours. There is not a single peer reviewed paper that defines random as loosely as you do. And yet it's the word you and Behe must use at all costs.... because you need scientists to be saying that evolution is random. They're not. But, damn if you don't keep saying they are.... just like Behe.

Everything you say like everything Behe says in regards to evolution-- hyperfocuses on randomness and completely ignores natural selection and how exactly it makes for the appearance of design. Moreover, like Behe, you insult those who could disabuse you of your ignorance-- you pretend to know more than them to be more right to have some advanced knowledge while having a complete lack of curiosity on new developments or writings on the topic.

You have an obsession for speaking on evolution related threads as though you were an expert while showing a complete lack of knowledge regarding what the experts are actually saying. You speak on these threads as though you have something to teach... something valuable to say on the topic-- and those who actually understand the topic keep telling you that you sound muddled-- non-explanatory... you are not conveying information... you are obsessed with describing evolution as random in the exact same way Behe is obsessed.

The only other threads you speak on are threads you start with insincere loaded questions where you blab on and on showing zero interest in the answers to the question or to interject and tell others how terrible they are to say bad things about religion. Unless I've actually missed a conversation you had where there was dialogue and actual back and forth exchange of information ... where you actually changed your position an iota from the apologist/behesque blather you usually spout. Have you ever been funny? Actually conveyed information to anyone... I'm sure there will be a mad dash to my pm box where people will enlighten me if so. Instead I just see you endlessly insulting Dawkins, Cyborg, gayak, me, and those who aim to give you a clue. You end up pissing on everyone who goes to bat for you who thinks you aren't really what you are.

 

[qayak]

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.

I think he needs to read pages 60 - 62 of Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Nobody but you is calling a stochastic process itself random. It contains random variables... only you are calling the process random.

Here is where you show you're complete and utter ignorance of probability theory. All a stochastic process is is a family of random variables that have been indexed to another (sometimes linearly ordered) set. It doesn't just contain random variables; it is random variables and nothing else.

See the definitions at MathWorld, PlanetMath, and Wikipedia to start you off.

 

[articulett]

Biased is generally considered the opposite of random mijo. Give it up. You aren't fooling me. I know you google assorted words that you think are saying what you are saying. No one but you is calling evolution random. Other people are not using words as loosely as you. Just because you extrapolate the word stochastic to mean random and anything having to do with probabilities as random-- doesn't mean anyone else of any integrity is.

Yes... I know-- to you, as to Behe-- you will always over emphasize the randomness of evolution... even if you have to play semantic games and twist articles into sort of saying what you are saying-- You will never ever be able to convey natural selection and how it brings order and the appearance of design-- just like Behe.... and you like Behe you will act affronted and like you are being honest and academically rigorous and providing a "fruitful" explanation while all those dishonest lying scientists are misleading everyone.

 

[articulett]

Here is where you show you're complete and utter ignorance of probability theory. All a stochastic process is is a family of random variables that have been indexed to another (sometimes linearly ordered) set. It doesn't just contain random variables; it is random variables and nothing else.

See the definitions at MathWorld, PlanetMath, and Wikipedia to start you off.

Nope still your ignorance... nobody is saying stochastic processes are random... no-one is using stochastic as a synonym for random... except you. And this is the same pedantic but wrong language you used to assert (wrongly) that an atom of carbon in a life form was somehow different than an atom of carbon in a car. Maybe you can fool others with your hubris and pedantic language, but you can't fool the people who actually understand evolution, stochastic processes, or the nature of atoms. It's all bluster, no content. Just like behe. Nobody but Mijo is saying that if something can be described via a stochastic process then that something itself is random. But THAT, in essence is what you are saying.

 

[articulett]

I think he needs to read pages 60 - 62 of Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

Mijo only reads that which supports his preformed conclusions. Unless he can twist Dennetts words into saying that evolution is random, it won't compute. Plus, Dennett is a known atheist, and Mijo finds everything those types say wrong wrong wrong while dashing to the defense of every creationist-abuse someone mentions. Why, didn't he stalk you for daring to point out that it was abusive for the creationist tour guides to teach little kids that scientists are liars? That's right-- he thought your commentary was much worse than the lying creationist tour guides...! And he followed you from thread to thread to derail to discuss your terrible attack on religion.

 

[articulett]

I don't know mijo.... somehow your scurry to find articles that you think are saying what you are saying reminds me of Behe's apopolectic reaction to noting his obsession with randomness

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2

Now, wait a darn second. Wasn’t it Darwin himself, we are constantly assured, who based his theory on “random” variation? So it’s “incorrigible” to associate with Darwin’s theory something which Darwin himself associated with it? And isn’t there a rather well-known evolutionary biologist with the initials Richard Dawkins currently traveling the world to tell us exactly that Darwinism means purposelessness? --behe

It sounds like you are saying-- "evolution is so random... look even the experts are saying it..."

They aren't. You just keep managing to find and twist evidence so that you can conclude they are.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo only reads that which supports his preformed conclusions.

Sounds much like you.

 

[six7s]

How do you continually manage to use words to say nothing at all?

​

 

[quixotecoyote]

I've heard, "Mijo is a creationist"
I've heard, "Mijo talks like Behe"
I've heard, "Mijo is ignorant"
I've heard, "Mijo is an internet stalker"
I've heard, "Mijo is dishonest"

You know what I haven't heard? I haven't heard why it's wrong to use the mathematical definition of randomness to describe evolution. I've heard that it makes it inaccessible to layman, but not why it is incorrect.

So enlighten me, because the last time I checked, the academic use of random was a system where variables can take on values within a domain according to a set of probabilities, which to the best of my knowledge is both descriptive of evolution and equivalent to mijo's statements. Just to make sure I understood it correctly, I looked up the formal definition of random and found it was what I thought in this paper on electrical engineering which gave

Grimmett and D. Strirzaker. Probability and Random Processes. Oxford Science Publications,1992

as the citation for the definition.

http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=967514649&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=967514649.pdf

It's possible that using terms held with the utmost precision is not the best way to educate people, but that's a long way from being wrong.

 

[articulett]

Sounds much like you.

I read your links--they just are never saying what you are saying..

... it's you who never comment on anyone else's links... even when those links are exactly the kind of evidence you supposedly were interested in. -- peer reviewed papers where natural selection is described as "nonrandom"-- APA reports regarding abuse of children by religion, studies showing that societies with lesser religiosity show greater societal health, experts using analogies to show that the evolution of information in genomes is analogous to the evolution of information that codes for the technological advancements...

It was you who ignored all the links explaining the discontinuous fossil record while concluding that scientists really can't explain the discontinuity...

I don't ignore your links-- I'm just pointing out that you are the only person who is concluding that they are saying evolution is random or that it makes sense or is meaningful to describe it that way. They aren't. You have imposed your meaning over papers you google using words that you've decided are synonymous for random.

But like every woo- it's easy to see the sawdust in another's eye while ignoring the branch sticking out of your own.

I exchange quite a lot of information with people on this forum. I learn a lot, and I have many people thanking me for teaching them something. The only person accusing me of not reading their links is you. And you know what I think of you and your "opinions". I find them useless, wrong, dishonest, obfuscating, and self -aggrandizing... like everything you post. Even the people who support you at first don't stick around once your unyielding hubris and endless nothingness becomes all too obvious--as it always does.

 

[articulett]

I've heard, "Mijo is a creationist"
I've heard, "Mijo talks like Behe"
I've heard, "Mijo is ignorant"
I've heard, "Mijo is an internet stalker"
I've heard, "Mijo is dishonest"

You know what I haven't heard? I haven't heard why it's wrong to use the mathematical definition of randomness to describe evolution. I've heard that it makes it inaccessible to layman, but not why it is incorrect.

So enlighten me, because the last time I checked, the academic use of random was a system where variables can take on values within a domain according to a set of probabilities, which to the best of my knowledge is both descriptive of evolution and equivalent to mijo's statements. Just to make sure I understood it correctly, I looked up the formal definition of random and found it was what I thought in this paper on electrical engineering which gave

Grimmett and D. Strirzaker. Probability and Random Processes. Oxford Science Publications,1992

as the citation for the definition.

http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=967514649&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename=967514649.pdf

It's possible that using terms held with the utmost precision is not the best way to educate people, but that's a long way from being wrong.

Everyone's pretty much said that. You'll have to ask him why he thinks it's more fruitful to call evolution random... and why he thinks Dawkins is dishonest and unclear when he says that natural selection is the opposite of random.

The OP was about what Intelligent Designs predicts... it can't predict anything. But Natural selection can guarantee increasing complexity and the appearance of seemingly miraculous design.

 

[articulett]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_176024737f0f5a631c.png[/qimg]
​

 

[quixotecoyote]

Everyone's pretty much said that. You'll have to ask him why he thinks it's more fruitful to call evolution random... and why he thinks Dawkins is dishonest and unclear when he says that natural selection is the opposite of random.

The OP was about what Intelligent Designs predicts... it can't predict anything. But Natural selection can guarantee increasing complexity and the appearance of miraculous design.

Well, calling natural selection the opposite of random is misleading. The opposite of random is deterministic, where outcomes can be spoken of in terms of pure causality rather than probabilities. Even granting that determinism may actually act more as a limit than as a reachable position, natural selection certainly has a large deal of probabilistic effects.

As for Dawkins, I thought the quote was that natural selection is the opposite of random selection, which would still be misleading but less so. There are still a lot of probabilities involved with natural selection, but they are identifiable not arbitrary, which is what I think his meaning was.

I understand that ID'ers like to misuse randomness to access the '747 in a junkyard' argument. But you're not seriously suggesting that we let that impact how we use things correctly? Are you?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Everyone's pretty much said that. You'll have to ask him why he thinks it's more fruitful to call evolution random... and why he thinks Dawkins is dishonest and unclear when he says that natural selection is the opposite of random.

It's quite simple: because calling evolution by natural selection a stochastic process is correct.

The OP was about what Intelligent Designs predicts... it can't predict anything. But Natural selection can guarantee increasing complexity and the appearance of seemingly miraculous design.

I'm sorry, for someone who is so concerned with the correct description of evolution, you couldn't be more wrong. Natural selection does not guarantee increased complexity; it guarantees increased adaptation to an ecological niche. If the niche requires less complexity (another one of your hand-wavy terms) then the organism will be less complex; if the niche requires more complexity, the organism will be more complex.

 

[articulett]

Well, calling natural selection the opposite of random is misleading. The opposite of random is deterministic, where outcomes can be spoken of in terms of pure causality rather than probabilities. Even granting that determinism may actually act more as a limit than as a reachable position, natural selection certainly has a large deal of probabilistic effects.

As for Dawkins, I thought the quote was that natural selection is the opposite of random selection, which would still be misleading but less so. There are still a lot of probabilities involved with natural selection, but they are identifiable not arbitrary, which is what I think his meaning was.

I understand that ID'ers like to misuse randomness to access the '747 in a junkyard' argument. But you're not seriously suggesting that we let that impact how we use things correctly? Are you?

I'm saying if you want to be understood than use the words of those who convey understanding to many... not the words of those who obfuscate understanding for many.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1...ns-reviews-Behes-lastest-book,Richard-Dawkins

There are those who think they understand evolution better than they actually do... and they tend to think they have valid ways of explaining evolution-- but those who actually understand the process disagree... and there is no evidence that their explanations are useful in any way to anyone. (I consider you one of those people who thinks he understands natural selection better than he actually does... I don't think you could convey it well because I don't think you understand it well.)

In any case... here is what Dawkins said regarding Behe's hyperfocus on calling evolution random:

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

Most biologists will say and have said... that natural selection is "not random"-- the opposite of random... the de-randomizer-- and that it confuses the issue to refer to it as random. Having random components, does not a random process make. The randomness is the easy part to understand about evolution (and even mutations are not truly random... they are determined by environmental inputs-- but they occur whether or not the benefit the replicator containing them.) But it's natural selection that is the real miracle worker. And until and unless you understand how it brings about the appearance of design-- you ought to read more and pontificate less... you aren't qualified as an expert on the topic. Those who think otherwise, will be as illuminating as Behe-- a guy who hasn't conveyed an iota of understanding about evolution to anyone.

 

[mijopaalmc]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_176024737f0f5a631c.png[/qimg]
​

Why don't you actually answer the question and address the content of the quotes instead of being childish?