Intelligent design's predictions

[articulett]

#156-pure insults and ad hom, no content

#157-sheer denial without explication or content combined with poison well fallacies

#158-admission of trolling.

Frankly that's what I thought you were doing. No one can produce that much text and say so little of substance if they actually are trying to argue a position.

Please PM me when you are done trolling. I wouldn't mind having a legitimate discussion about this.

Until you distinguish your methods from Tai's-- I think it would be pointless. I have many excellent sources here. I prefer information exchange with the more knowledgeable. And your assessment of my posts might better if used on yourself. I shall put you on ignore. I'm sure the smart people will quote you should you say anything of value. I shall trust those same people to let me know if Mijo says something informative or useful as well.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Until you distinguish your methods from CFLarsen's I will feel the same.

Fortunately for me, while I may share an opinion or two with Tai Chi, I've never shared his methods and there are dozens of threads which attest to that. Unfortunately, in the only two threads I've ever dealt with you, pretension, and ill-conceived attempts at browbeating are the main tools you seem to use. Combined with a fondness for large word-counts consisting of fallacious appeals to popularity, authority, and ad homs, it leads me to at least agree with you that discussion is pointless here.

 

[articulett]

Of course evolution will lead to greater complexity. If you define complexity as what evolution leads to .

Or if you're intelligent. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html

 

[quixotecoyote]

Or if you're intelligent. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html

Yes, randomness can lead to ordered structures. That wasn't a point in dispute.

 

[FireGarden]

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.

Would you compare evolution to a dice roll? Or would you compare it to a sieve?

I think the latter is better because evolution contains an element of sorting. The environment sorts out which mutations are most successful.

Whether the mutations are random or not is neither here nor there as far as the sorting "algorithm" is concerned. It will manage to sort just as long as there is variation.

 

[FireGarden]

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.

The program I linked to does that. The input is random. The process of evolution is not. It sorts out the variation according to a simulated environment. The process as a whole ends up working.

It would do so no matter the input. As long as there is meaningful variation, there is something to sort.

The only way to throw a spanner in the works is to remove the variation. I don't see how that can be done with a random input. The input would have an aim, a goal. Thus could not be random.

 

[articulett]

I

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

I was not wrong about Rodney. He IS a creationist. He may not be a young earth creationist... so I may have mislabeled him on that extreme and what he said was I'm not a "young earth creationist."... quotes in the original. He was using being oblique... he is probably not a young earth creationist... just a standard kind. And I'd be glad to look up links that prove it even to you, my trusting friend.

Rodney is definitely a creationist... moreover, he was definitely implying that there was meaning behind the levitating man in front of the white house. Now, I love you too, wowbagger, but you are amazingly naive. "intelligent Design" proponents are very wary about seeming to have ulterior motives-- so they hedge and play with words. Behe will even say he is not a creationist. But he is. You just haven't been around it enough where you recognize the lingo-- and what is NOT being said-- the way words are used so multiple people can hear what they want to hear. You trust people to be honest... but intelligent design proponents are not. Behe isn't. Some people think that he's not being dishonest-- but I think he is. I think it's very nice of you to come to the defense of some members... and I promise not to warn you any more. But your conclusions point to naivete' on your part.

Mark my words. The more Mijo says, the less you'll understand what he's trying to say. And it won't be because it's you.

ETA-- Here's a linky showing Rodney's creationist leanings... and it's from Mijo's OP with a loaded question in which all this was discussed before
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2791872&highlight=evolution#post2791872

If you think you can make a dent, be my guest. But there were people posting there who were much clearer than you or I-- and no one managed to give him a clue. His position never changed... and the the OP question was weird-- designed not to be answered... and very similar to his other weird thread... that was also a reflection of a common creationist canard.

 

[FireGarden]

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.

Is the outcome of a game of chess random? We can't determine the outcome before hand. There is even a non-zero probability that I will beat the world champion in a 10 game match. Do you want to call such a match random?

By the precise definition of random, the answer would be "yes". But that is somewhat extreme. Especially when the topic isn't maths but public debate, where less precise defintions of the word "random" are used.

And even if the outcome of a chess game is random, the process of playing the game is not. Very few players make random moves.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The program I linked to does that. The input is random. The process of evolution is not. It sorts out the variation according to a simulated environment. The process as a whole ends up working.

It would do so no matter the input. As long as there is meaningful variation, there is something to sort.

The only way to throw a spanner in the works is to remove the variation. I don't see how that can be done with a random input. The input would have an aim, a goal. Thus could not be random.

I missed where you linked to the program. Could you relink?

My take on it is that in evolution, you don't know what the next viable formulation will be. Moreover, you can't know. Too many variables. But it is possible to put some possibilities within a range of probabilities. Thus even in a system with selected or designed components, the end result can be random. I don't see why you'd call a program with random (not arbitrary, mind you) results non-random.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Is the outcome of a game of chess random? We can't determine the outcome before hand. There is even a non-zero probability that I will beat the world champion in a 10 game match. Do you want to call such a match random?

By the precise definition of random, the answer would be "yes". But that is somewhat extreme. Especially when the topic isn't maths but public debate, where less precise defintions of the word "random" are used.

And even if the outcome of a chess game is random, the process of playing the game is not. Very few players make random moves.

I think it could be important to make the distinction. If you are speaking to an audience capable of understanding, "technically, the outcome will be random" then you should do so, as it is most accurate.

Otherwise you could say "yes for the common usage of random".

But if someone is trying to use the chess match as an analogy for something else, you should clearly explain the terms used, even if they may be counter-intuitive.

I'm not willing to make an argument on random moves within chess. There's a player in the local chess club who resorts to 'chaos chess' tactics against clearly superior players wherein he does exactly that, making random moves in an attempt to cause his opponent to overthink the game and make a mistake. Additionally, when I play sometimes there are several moves which would seem equally worthy. How do I pick? I might call it random. Then again determining which opening I play or how the midgame plays out could be determined probabilistically as well.

eta:
In the end, most if not all things end up being random. As you implied earlier, there may be situations in which the causality or probabilities are so obvious there's no need to treat the situation as random, though it may in fact be. In such cases you might say, "For all intents and purposes, this is deterministic." Even if that is the case I would not put evolution in that category.

 

[FireGarden]

I missed where you linked to the program. Could you relink?

No problem:
http://math.hws.edu/xJava/GA/

My take on it is that in evolution, you don't know what the next viable formulation will be. Moreover, you can't know. Too many variables. But it is possible to put some possibilities within a range of probabilities. Thus even in a system with selected or designed components, the end result can be random. I don't see why you'd call a program with random (not arbitrary, mind you) results non-random.

I've already said that the program could be used as a random number generator -- just use the stats output. But what would be the point? The program itself uses a better random number generator. The stats seem less random to me. Especially at the beginning when they rise and rise -- that's something of a pattern even if not entirely determined.

More importantly: The program would continue to work without the random input. Just as long as the input wasn't designed to lead to a lack of variation, it doesn't matter how regular the input is. 101010101010..... would probably work fine.

The evolution aspect of the program merely sorts the variation into successful/not so successful. That aspect of the program is not random. No more than a sieve is random. Yes, some flower gets stuck to the side of a sieve rather than falling through. So at the extreme end... A sieve is non-deterministic. But seriously.... Who calls a sieving a random process?

 

[articulett]

Is the outcome of a game of chess random? We can't determine the outcome before hand. There is even a non-zero probability that I will beat the world champion in a 10 game match. Do you want to call such a match random?

By the precise definition of random, the answer would be "yes". But that is somewhat extreme. Especially when the topic isn't maths but public debate, where less precise defintions of the word "random" are used.

And even if the outcome of a chess game is random, the process of playing the game is not. Very few players make random moves.

I know it doesn't make sense... but those bent on calling natural selection random will also insist that Poker is as random as roulette. Why anyone would use such poor descriptors is beyond me-- but labeling things random seems to be more important to such folks than conveying information. I know you think that a little explanation will do the trick-- but it just won't work. It never does. It's a tenacious mind lock.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I know it doesn't make sense... but those bent on calling natural selection random will also insist that Poker is as random as roulette. Why anyone would use such poor descriptors is beyond me-- but labeling things random seems to be more important to such folks than conveying information. I know you think that a little explanation will do the trick-- but it just won't work. It never does. It's a mind meld or something.

I have been quite clear that randomness involves degrees of probabilities, meaning your 'roulette as random as poker' jibe is a blatant strawman.

 

[quixotecoyote]

No problem:
http://math.hws.edu/xJava/GA/



I've already said that the program could be used as a random number generator -- just use the stats output. But what would be the point? The program itself uses a better random number generator. The stats seem less random to me. Especially at the beginning when they rise and rise -- that's something of a pattern even if not entirely determined.

More importantly: The program would continue to work without the random input. Just as long as the input wasn't designed to lead to a lack of variation, it doesn't matter how regular the input is. 101010101010..... would probably work fine.

The evolution aspect of the program merely sorts the variation into successful/not so successful. That aspect of the program is not random. No more than a sieve is random. Yes, some flower gets stuck to the side of a sieve rather than falling through. So at the extreme end... A sieve is non-deterministic. But seriously.... Who calls a sieving a random process?

May I restrict my comment in terms of your program?

In any given year there will be an average score, a high score, and a general pattern of plantgrowth and eater behavior.

In the simulation being run, for any given year you will not be able to absolutely predict any of those things. However with enough time and familiarity with the program, you will be able to predict the probabilities of them. Is there anything in this analysis you don't agree with?

My next step would be to say that if you cannot evaluate the system deterministically, you have to treat it as random. Random doesn't mean arbitrary selection, which we agree this isn't. It means not-deterministic or probabilistic.

eta:
And I agree that the stats here are more random than the random number its based on. I feel there may be something wrong with saying some things are less random than others, but as I can't articulate a argument against it, for now I'm agreeing.

 

[FireGarden]

I think it could be important to make the distinction. If you are speaking to an audience capable of understanding, "technically, the outcome will be random" then you should do so, as it is most accurate.

Otherwise you could say "yes for the common usage of random".

I've nothing against that.

I'm not willing to make an argument on random moves within chess. There's a player in the local chess club who resorts to 'chaos chess' tactics against clearly superior players wherein he does exactly that, making random moves in an attempt to cause his opponent to overthink the game and make a mistake. Additionally, when I play sometimes there are several moves which would seem equally worthy. How do I pick? I might call it random. Then again determining which opening I play or how the midgame plays out could be determined probabilistically as well.

Games at our level have been described as "an unending exchange of blunders."

Precisely why the outcome of a match between myself and Anand would be so predictable.

eta:
In the end, most if not all things end up being random. As you implied earlier, there may be situations in which the causality or probabilities are so obvious there's no need to treat the situation as random, though it may in fact be. In such cases you might say, "For all intents and purposes, this is deterministic." Even if that is the case I would not put evolution in that category.

The outcome of evolution, maybe. Because there are many possible outcomes.

But the process is different.
There are many possible outcomes to sieving. Which grains of flour will get stuck to the sieve? But a process which bring order to random data is not itself random.

Putting words into alphabetical order is not a random process. If the words are chosen at random, then the output will be random -- in the sense of not pre-determined. But the act of sorting them is clearly not random.

Evolution is more like a sorting algorithm than a random number generator. As I said before, such a sorting algorithm works with non-random input. It is not intrinsically random even though you could use it as a random number generator by inputing random numbers which are then sorted. The randomness would not come from the sorting algorithm. Would it?

 

[FireGarden]

My next step would be to say that if you cannot evaluate the system deterministically, you have to treat it as random. Random doesn't mean arbitrary selection, which we agree this isn't. It means not-deterministic or probabilistic.

I cannot determine the output of the whole system, because the whole system uses a random number generator.

But such a program would still illustrate evolution even if you replaced the random numbers with a regular input. Then it becomes entirely deterministic. If you run the programme twice with the same input, you get the same output.

The process of evolution requires variation in order to work. Whether that variation is random or not is neither here nor there.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I've nothing against that.
The outcome of evolution, maybe. Because there are many possible outcomes.

But the process is different.
There are many possible outcomes to sieving. Which grains of flour will get stuck to the sieve? But a process which bring order to random data is not itself random.

Putting words into alphabetical order is not a random process. If the words are chosen at random, then the output will be random -- in the sense of not pre-determined. But the act of sorting them is clearly not random.

Allow me a stream of rhetorical questions.

What if you make a mistake while sorting?

What do you sort them by? Which alphabet? English? Why? Why do you speak it? What if you'd been raised speaking Chinese?

Evolution is more like a sorting algorithm than a random number generator. As I said before, such a sorting algorithm works with non-random input. It is not intrinsically random even though you could use it as a random number generator by inputing random numbers which are then sorted. The randomness would not come from the sorting algorithm. Would it?

I agree that evolution is partially a sorting mechanism; variation + natural selection. Both have random elements though. The variation can be treated as completely random for all intents and purposes as we agree on that.

But the selection doesn't remove the randomness. Not every variation adding to fitness is selected for and not every variation detracting from fitness is selected against. It probably will. Through that probability the randomness is maintained.

Also, why are the selection pressures the selection pressures? Why are you sorting words in the Roman/American alphabet instead of the Chinese? There's randomness here too.

Finally, even if neither of those were the case, I thought you agreed that the results were random, albeit less random than a pure dice roller would be? I still don't see how a process with a random result can be called non-random.

 

[cyborg]

I suppose I could point out the false dichotomy of random/non-random again.

I suppose I could but since no-one really got it last time I doubt they'll get it this time.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I cannot determine the output of the whole system, because the whole system uses a random number generator.

But such a program would still illustrate evolution even if you replaced the random numbers with a regular input. Then it becomes entirely deterministic. If you run the programme twice with the same input, you get the same output.

The process of evolution requires variation in order to work. Whether that variation is random or not is neither here nor there.

I'm unconvinced. What would the program be illustrating without the random chances of increasing fitness, the random chances of copying, the random sharing of choice/situation requirements, etc? It doesn't seem like it could still model evolution as a process. You could do a post hoc modeling the path of one instance of evolution that you already knew all the variables for, but you couldn't extrapolate that into anything or make comments about the course of evolution in general.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I suppose I could point out the false dichotomy of random/non-random again.

I suppose I could but since no-one really got it last time I doubt they'll get it this time.

Thank you for posting to inform us you won't be posting anything, especially as you apparently missed the discussion of degrees of randomness, determinism as a limit, and comparative randomness throughout processes.