Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[six7s]

... and it isn't because the process is so complex or hard to understand. It's the "sender". Some just aren't really saying anything.

Thanks articulett,

I agree, which is why its so damned annoying to be SENT, on their blinkered hobby-horse, to an inevitable dead end

 

[articulett]

Thanks articulett,

I agree, which is why its so damned annoying to be SENT, on their blinkered hobby-horse, to an inevitable dead end

With the mealy mouthed--yes. But look at Myriad and Cyborg and the many others who actually say stuff that IS comprehensible... even if not to those most in need of such comprehension. JREF is a great forum for learning--once you figure out who has something worth reading.

 

[mijopaalmc]

With the mealy mouthed--yes. But look at Myriad and Cyborg and the many others who actually say stuff that IS comprehensible... even if not to those most in need of such comprehension. JREF is a great forum for learning--once you figure out who has something worth reading.

It must be nice for you that you only understand the people who agree with you. All others "obfuscate", right?

Here, I make really clear to you.

Evolution is random because there is more than one possible outcome for each possible set of genes. Selection biases the outcome by making certain sets of genes more likely to survive. Due to the mathematical nature of stochastic sampling, however, a constant environment (i.e., on in which the selection criteria don't change) will produce convergence towards an adaptive optimum.

There you have it: a mechanism for how evolution can occur if it is a random process. Notice how it is distinctly lacking is an "intelligent designer"?

Now, can you dispense with the "creationist hobby-horse" straw man?

 

[Meadmaker]

Myriad,


Good post.



(I deleted the rest of what had been in here because today's discussions are just too depressing.)

 

[six7s]

Selection biases the outcome by making certain sets of genes more likely to survive.

Notice how it is distinctly lacking is an "intelligent designer"?

I am a sceptic, not a cynic, so I am prepared to accept that you might be sincerely telling me you are not an apologist for ID. However, your use of words still implies (to me) that 'selection' (rather than merely 'descriptive' of what happens) is a 'proscriptive' force with an inbuilt 'ability' to 'bias an outcome' and 'make things happen'

Perhaps there is simply a language barrier - there are no clues in your avatar or profile... Pehaps I have developed my own bias, based on how I interpret the content and tone of your posts... Perhaps its a mix of both... Perhaps you are simply yanking my chain

Now, can you dispense with the "creationist hobby-horse" straw man?

Telling me that you do NOT support ANY notions of ID and creationism will be a start

 

[Myriad]

Myriad,

Good post.

(I deleted the rest of what had been in here because today's discussions are just too depressing.)

Thanks, Meadmaker. Sorry the conversation was depressing.

I would agree that the exact description to be used depends on the exact circumstances, including what aspect of the problem you are describing, and the audience to whom you are speaking.

But clarity in description also requires clarity about what you are describing. Synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is referred to as the whole or vice versa, becomes a fallacy of argumentation when it is meant, or taken, literally. Calling a lion capturing a slow gazelle "evolution in action" is synecdoche (representing a part as the whole), as is calling the entire history of life on earth "evolutionary history" (again representing a part as the whole, disregarding the contribution of e.g. geophysical events on that history).

Synecdoche is a great cause of confusion in many subjects, especially controversial political issues. Opponents love to equate the whole of something with its least appealing part (calling a proposed comprehensive birth control policy an "abortion bill") almost as much as proponents love to equate something with the whole of its area of desired effect stated in broadest terms (calling a proposed law to regulate one pesticide "the safe food act.") With all the discussion of logical fallacies that occurs in these forums, I'm surprised synecdoche doesn't get mentioned more often.

With very few exceptions, when a medical or biological researcher says "I study evolution," that's synecdoche. The evolution-related phenomena the researcher actually studies might indeed be random, such as the variations in timing of the emergence of certain drug resistances in the viral population of individual AIDS patients. But to therefore conclude "evolution is random" turns the figure of speech into a fallacy. It overstates the significance of the specific phenomenon to evolution in general, and it also implies the assumption that the randomness observed is intrinsic to the phenomenon of evolution itself, rather than, say, variations between the immune systems of the individual patients.

So, there's nothing wrong with speaking of the stochastic (probabilistic, random, etc. using any or all of those terms) nature of the process of a favorable new mutation spreading (or failing to spread) through the population, to an audience equipped to understand the point in context. But any implication that that result gives an accurate impression of how evolution works becomes synecdoche if you fail to distinguish between the distribution of outcomes for one occurrence of one single mutation, and the effects of constant variations in an entire population over long periods of time.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Elind]

But clarity in description also requires clarity about what you are describing. Synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is referred to as the whole or vice versa, becomes a fallacy of argumentation when it is meant, or taken, literally. Calling a lion capturing a slow gazelle "evolution in action" is synecdoche (representing a part as the whole), as is calling the entire history of life on earth "evolutionary history" (again representing a part as the whole, disregarding the contribution of e.g. geophysical events on that history).

Synecdoche is a great cause of confusion in many subjects, especially controversial political issues.

I love it when I learn a new word, especially one that will force an opponent to go to the dictionary before responding.

Even before I reached the last sentence quoted above I thought "bingo!", back to the politics section I go.

Thanks (now I have to write it out longhand 20 times to be sure I remember).

 

[kjkent1]

It must be nice for you that you only understand the people who agree with you. All others "obfuscate", right?

Here, I make really clear to you.

Evolution is random because there is more than one possible outcome for each possible set of genes. Selection biases the outcome by making certain sets of genes more likely to survive. Due to the mathematical nature of stochastic sampling, however, a constant environment (i.e., on in which the selection criteria don't change) will produce convergence towards an adaptive optimum.

There you have it: a mechanism for how evolution can occur if it is a random process. Notice how it is distinctly lacking is an "intelligent designer"?

Now, can you dispense with the "creationist hobby-horse" straw man?

I'm no ID/creation devotee, I think you've stated a pretty reasonable view, and I'm not certain why anyone would object to it.

What you're describing above seems to me to be substantially what occurs in the real-world evolutionary life process.

 

[jimbob]

Yes. It is always possible. The mathematical constructs allow an ambiguity in description. I pointed this out some time ago. It appears no-one gets this.

I do... but then I alway did.
If clarity is the goal--stick with the words that have worked for many.

So, please show how you would do this, in the examples that I gave earlier?


A restatment of my view is below:

If a trait is "beneficial" the organisms carrying those traits axiomatically tend to have more reproducing offspring*, and the converse for "detrimental" traits.

As organisms tend to resemble their parents, but with slight differences, these beneficial traits tend to grow within the population at the expense of the "detremental" traits. The generations become more optimised.



As far as I see, the difference between my view and yours is the qualifier "tend to".

You may ask how can I define a trait as beneficial, when an organism carrying susch a trait actually has fewer reproducing offspring on a particular occasion. THe answer is that it is possible to statistically look at populations with different traits, e.g. height ranges, or speed ranges, and perform statistical tests on their reproduciton.


*they tend to, because the probable number of reproducing offspring is larger, however when a beneficial mutation has arisen, it is still quite likely to be wiped out in its first few generations. I can show you the sums if you want.

 

[jimbob]

And just to restate, I agree with mijo's post, quoted above in #468. I understand it and there is essentially no difference from my views, although it is bviously known that I prfefer "probabilistic" selection, for the reasons stated in this thread...

Six7s, that quwstion could be construed too loosly, this sort of thing has happened in this thread but I did ask mijo similar questions and he doesn't see the need for a creator r designer to explain how humanity aroes (nad he says that they evolved).

From his posts that I read, the only problem seems to have been aout engineers especially(?) using technically correct terms, and disliking the use of terms, which are activly misleading to anyone who is numerate.

 

[articulett]

From my perspective this is what happened. Mijo asked how evolution is non-random and why Dawkins would say that Natural Selection is the opposite of random. This is because creationists etc. extrapolate random to mean the tornado in the junkyard analogy... they use it to confuse the issue and infer implausibility.

Of course creationists, apologists, and those insistent on describing evolution ignore this and all the evidence illustrating this that has been provided by many fine folks here on this forum.

Darwin's theory and the beauty of evolution--THE explanation as to why things look design but are not-- have little to do with randomness and everything to do with natural selection! (That is the exponential replication of the info that builds the most successful replicators over time and the elimination of the failures!) It's simple, and elegant. It explains why things look designed though they are not. Explanations that muddle this understanding or attempt to confuse it with the relative randomness of mutation do no service to anyone if the goal is to clarify. It's not that probabilities aren't used... we just avoid ambiguity in terminology when the aim is to communicate rather than obfuscate. Behe clearly aims to obfuscate.

If anyone wants to communicate the concept of evolution, I suggest they follow the words of those who have been successful for many-- Darwin, Dawkins, Matt Ridley, Steven Jones, Stephen Pinker, Ayala, Natalie Angiers, etc. Talk Origins is good. There are many members on this forum who are great. The Berkely site is fantastic. The NCSE rocks. But those sure that they are better at describing it don't even read these sources and don't care that no evidence suggests their mealy mouthed verbiage conveys understanding of anything to anyone. It's not necessarily wrong... just like Behe might not absolutely be a liar-- but it's not an effective communication strategy.

And I would avoid describing it as Behe and other intelligent design proponents do because his method, as illustrated by the wedge document, is not designed to clarify --but to confuse. His goal is to place the emphasis on randomness (which is really the easy easy part of evolution to understand) so that people don't get natural selection-- which is not random... but DETERMINED by the best replicators in the previous generation --this gives the most future possibilities for beneficial mutations to occur. Randomness is a part of the process, but as Dawkins notes, it is the least important part of understanding evolution and how things look designed but aren't.

I would only use random to explain the changes on the DNA level... even though they are not "truly random"--but they ARE unpredictable, and they happen whether it's beneficial to the organism or not.

And that is the problem with poor definitions--even if they are "not wrong", they just are not communicating the non-random aspects of evolution that lead to exponential replication of the best replicators and thus the appearance of design. This is the concept that makes a designer unnecessary. This is why Dawkins and all the best in the field go out of their way to emphasize the non-random part of the process! And yet some people never hear that. Thinking of evolution as "random" makes the results seem improbable... understanding natural selection and how it is not random makes the result obvious. It's the essence of what Darwin was describing. He never saw a chromosome or anything.

This need to define evolution in terms of probability and randomness does not convey natural selection effectively... if it sounds like you guys don't understand it to a trained ear... then how can you communicate it to others? If you sound more like Behe than Dawkins... you will be as successful at teaching the idea as Behe. Behe has been disowned by his Alma Mater... If you want to sound similarly muddle mouthed-- be my guest. But Behe is most decidedly not a respected scientist nor can he convey understanding of evolution to anyone. If you really want to understand the problem with such definitions, read the Dawkins eloquent review of Behe's new book. And then read anything by Behe to understand exactly how little information is conveyed by such vague and convoluted speech.

It's not a hard concept to understand. And yet those who hyperfocus on the randomness are like Behe... and Dawkins' assessment of him-- and talk origins assessment of such people-- they just don't understand and cannot communicate how the order comes from the randomness. They do not understand the key point of evolution-- natural selection. They're not necessarily wrong--just vague and misleading and muddled sounding... LIKE BEHE.

The real question is-- why are you so in need of using the term random and probabilistic when it's clearly associated with ambiguity and Behe? Why are you such people so disdainful of Dawkins and so angry at him saying that natural selection is the opposite of random? Behe says as much because natural selection is the key to not needing a designer. Without understanding natural selection, you don't really understand evolution even if you think you do and you think you know all about randomness and probability.

The way Behe etc. describe things does not further understanding and infers that complexity could not happen randomly-- such complexity is implausible so long as you don't "get" or convey or understand natural selection. If you have no evidence that such explanations convey understanding and you have no clue as to why natural selection is not random and your goal is clarity, then try reading those who have explained the process to many and avoid sounding like those whose aim is to muddle understanding Behe.

What is your goal? There are no admitted creationists that are respected scientists as far as I can tell. And many people who know very little about randomness and probabilities have a much better understanding of evolution than Behe and those who sound like him. The MSNBC article for example.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274/

I don't see the need to use these vague words and I know of no successful communicator on the topic that talks like Behe or those who advocate calling evolution a random process. Random components do not a random process make. If you mean that it's unpredictable when you say random... use that word.

The scary truth for Behe is that really understanding natural selection is way more powerful, amazing, and useful knowledge than anything in any scripture. And it unlocks so much more understanding. And we humans figured it all out by ourselves.

 

[mijopaalmc]

#468

You mean #463?

 

[articulett]

Have your descriptions of evolution been useful to anyone, because to a trained ear it sounds like you don't get and cannot convey the process of natural selection without a need to call things "random" or probabilistic.. no matter how vague and misleading that might be. What IS "natural selection" and why invoke probabilities unless you have the numbers to plug in? What is your goal?

Creationist goal: obfuscate understanding of natural selection
Scientific goal: clarify understanding of natural selection.

Cyborg and Myriad are doing the latter. Dawkins is too. I am also. So is talk Origins.

 

[Meadmaker]

If anyone wants to communicate the concept of evolution, ...

(I don't know if articulett is reading this, because she may have me on ignore. Under that assumption, I will refer to her in the third person in this post. Articulett, if you are indeed reading this, you can correct my mistaken impression.)

I wonder where she got the idea that the goal of anyone was to communicate the concept of evolution. Presumably, everyone here has a pretty good handle on it. I, for one, am not out to communicate the concept of evolution to anyone.

 

[articulett]

(I don't know if articulett is reading this, because she may have me on ignore. Under that assumption, I will refer to her in the third person in this post. Articulett, if you are indeed reading this, you can correct my mistaken impression.)

I wonder where she got the idea that the goal of anyone was to communicate the concept of evolution. Presumably, everyone here has a pretty good handle on it. I, for one, am not out to communicate the concept of evolution to anyone.

I disagree on the second to last paragraph. What is your goal on this thread exactly and how does it relate to the OP again?

 

[Meadmaker]

Thanks, Meadmaker. Sorry the conversation was depressing.

Not your fault.

That was a very good post, again.

To be fair to those of us guilty of synecdoche, I would say that there is no way to say one sentence about evolution and not commit synecdoche. (How is that pronounced. sin-ech-dough-key?)


There are really 3 different topics under discussion here.

1. For any given term one might use for describing evolution, is it accurate.

2. Whether or not any particular term or description is accurate, is there one that is better than the others.

and

3. What should we do about those dirty rotten lying scum who use the wrong description?

My answers, with respect to the term "random".

1. Technically it's accurate, so long as you define the terms. At least, it's no less accurate than any other synecdotal (I wonder if that's a word) description.

2. Depends on circumstance, but you have given a particularly good explanation why "evolution is random" is not likely to be a very good description in most circumstances.

and

3. I really wish we weren't talking about 3, but that's where most of the effort has been expended.

 

[Meadmaker]

I disagree on the second to last paragraph. What is your goal on this thread exactly and how does it relate to the OP again?

This thread has been hijacked in a couple of different ways, but I'll try.

My goal in this overall discussion is to say that people are almost certainly telling the truth when speaking about their own beliefs. One should almost always assume that people are telling the truth on the topic of their beliefs, and really about most other things, unless there is strong reason to believe that they are not, and, in my humble opinion, no participant in these threads has given reason to doubt their sincerity.

With respect to "random", my belief is that it is a technically accurate term for describing the process of evolution. I take no position on its usefulness, with the limited exception of those who are interested specifically in population modelling (as with jimbob's questions) or computer simulations of evolutionary processes. Also, it does not make any difference that some people have used the term inaccurately, or as part of inaccurate descriptions. I do not care that some creationist somewhere has used that term as part of an argument. That doesn't interest me. I cannot infer anything about someone who uses the term just because some of the other people who have used that term are creationists. That's where my discussion of "random" as an US vs. THEM word comes in. I don't care if creationists use it. Words shouldn't be used as some sort of dividing line.

To the extent that this relates to anything in this thread's OP, it is that one cannot make nice neat categories and stick people into them. Specifically, one cannot assume that a creationist cannot be a scientist. There are creationist scientists, even creationist biologists, and this is possible because when it comes right down to it, evolution isn't all that important to most science work. If someone is doing science, then he's a scientist, and it does not matter if he happens to be a creationist, or some close cousin of a creationist.

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob
#468
You mean #463?

Yes, I was referring to Kjkent1's respones, which I also agreed with.

Articulett, I prefer to use "probabilistic" because then I can plug the numbers in.

OSme basic reasoning can give you ideas:

Suppose a population is stable then, by definition the average number of reproducing offspring per parent is one.

If you know brood sizes (say three for some birds with a ten year breeding-period) then the total brood size would be somewhere around 30 (it depends on the mortality of the adults...). This means that the average total brood size per parent is about 15. If the population is stable, this means that only 1/15 of these would actually make it to reproduction.

Simplistic assumptions can actually tell you things that I regard as interesting; as meadmaker says, I am assumaing that one does have a general idea about how evolution works.

Sorry for taking part in the hijacking, meadmaker, but nobody was listening on the appropriate thread.

I am assuming we are talking to a numerate audience, so would not be scared by the word "probabilistic".

Does anyone find my definitions of natural selection, or the numerical examples useful?

Articulett, am I misrepresenting your argument below, and where?

Mutation is "randomish" but those organisms which survive are by definition the best optimised and thus natural selection works because only the best optimised will reproduce
​

My version is subtly different:

I will define an advantageous trait simply as a trait that increases the probable number of reproducing offspring that an organism has.

Natural selection for traits works because advantageous traits increase the probability of reproducing, whilst disadvantageous traits decrease this probability. With a large enough population, and over enough generations, advantageous traits will spread whilst disadvantageous ones won't. Any particular advantageous trait is vulnerable to dying out whilst it is only in a small population (starting with one individual). The best way of assessing the likelyhood of this occuring is probabilistically.

It allows you to explain why faster gazelles do not always reproduce, without resorting to odd definitions, likeas in the "two eggs in a nest" analogy.

Speed is no good against fammine, in fact it might be disadvantageous.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Does anyone find my definitions of natural selection, or the numerical examples useful?

Yes. And Mijo's stated version in #463 as well. I think they are both fine and those are the sorts of explanations that Dawkins would also give, I think.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'd just like to put the "no credible scientist says that evolution is a stochastic/random process" argument to rest now.

There are at least three evolutionary biologist who have spent their time defending evolution who say evolution is a stochastic process:

• Motoo Kimura in "Stochastic Processes and the Distribution of Gene Frequencies under Natural Selection" in 1955
  
• Graham Bell in Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution in 1997.
  
• Laurence Moran in "Evolution by Accident" in 2006.

These sources are the ones in which it is not only stated that evolution is a stochastic process but it is also explained why it is. There are an additional 23 books in Google Books where the phrase "evolution is a stochastic process occurs" stated as a fact without explanation or as a justification for a conclusion.