Are there actually creationists who are scientists?

[Elind]

Synecdoche

 

[mijopaalmc]

Synecdoche

And you have absolutely no proof that the process of evolution is any different than the way that it is modeled. For the last time the orderly results of evolution do not imply a non-random mechanism.

 

[articulett]

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.

Dawkins disagrees:

You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested that it IS a good explanation. The correct explanation -- and it is indeed an excellently satisfying one -- is Darwinian natural selection. Darwinian natural selection is emphatically NOT the same thing as random mutation. Although random mutation does play a role in the theory, natural selection itself is the most important ingredient, and natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of random.

Three of my books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, and Climbing Mount Improbable, are devoted to explaining how Darwinian natural selection works, and why it is such a satisfying explanation.


http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml

If your goal is to explain evolution, use the words of those who have explained it to millions and not the words of those who don't seem to quite understand it themselves.

 

[Meadmaker]

For the last time ....

Not likely.

This randomness discussion has produced literally thousands of posts, and one message is going to end it once and for all? Doesn't seem realistic.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Dawkins disagrees:

You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested that it IS a good explanation. The correct explanation -- and it is indeed an excellently satisfying one -- is Darwinian natural selection. Darwinian natural selection is emphatically NOT the same thing as random mutation. Although random mutation does play a role in the theory, natural selection itself is the most important ingredient, and natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of random.

Three of my books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, and Climbing Mount Improbable, are devoted to explaining how Darwinian natural selection works, and why it is such a satisfying explanation.


http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml

If your goal is to explain evolution, use the words of those who have explained it to millions and not the words of those who don't seem to quite understand it themselves.

And what is the contradiction in what Dawkins and Mijo said?

Here is what Mijo said:

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.

Let us focus on the final outcome -convergence towards an adaptive optimum.


Myriad, on page 3 or 4 of the original thread discussing this, made the point that we should look from a particular perspective. Cyborg made the same point. Paul made that point. I repeated that point since it seemed to be overlooked in some of this discussion. Thankfully Myriad brought up the issue once again.

From the big perspective there is only one possible outcome when discussing the evolutionary process -- adaptation to a local optimum. Even from the restrictive use of the word "non-random" in which non-random means "only one outcome", evolution by means of natural selection fits this definition. The actual outcome is highly dependent on the initial conditions, but there is still only one possible outcome -- convergence toward an adaptive optimum.

If we interpret Dawkins' words to refer to the distribution of creatures that constitute the local optimum, then he is technically wrong. But that is not the proper perspective to take when discussing this. The result is always a local optimum. That is what is the opposite of non-random.

If Mijo did not mean that, then I retract my endorsement. But that is the only way I can see to interpret what he said.

 

[Meadmaker]

If your goal is to explain evolution, ..

And if it isn't?

And why is there only one explanation anyway?


If you ask a chemist and a chef how to bake a pie, you'll probably get two explanations. Is one of them wrong?

 

[Elind]

And if it isn't?

And why is there only one explanation anyway?


If you ask a chemist and a chef how to bake a pie, you'll probably get two explanations. Is one of them wrong?

One will almost certainly be less right, or more wrong, than the other in some critical aspect that will deny it a ribbon in the bake out.

 

[Meadmaker]

One will almost certainly be less right, or more wrong, than the other in some critical aspect that will deny it a ribbon in the bake out.

What if the goal is not to become a winner of the bake off, but to become a process engineer for Sara Lee?

 

[Elind]

Ooh, you are goood.

 

[articulett]

What if the goal is not to become a winner of the bake off, but to become a process engineer for Sara Lee?

Then tailor it towards the goal. Behe's goal is to obfuscate understanding... and so he spreads this nebulous concept of evolution that so many people have... that it all just came together randomly... which sounds implausible (see Oliver's posts about not believing)-- they think it's either this "random coincidence" or "purposeful design"-- but natural selection is neither... and it IS the key to understanding and communicating evolution. That is why Behe is very poor at describing what it is. It's not the variables that are hard to understand-- it's the way the winners exponentially beget the seeming design and direction we observe-- AND we can see THIS story in the DNA.

When you can't or don't incorporate that into the explanation then it sounds like you either don't understand it or don't want someone else too-- and it leads to the conclusion that scientists think this is all just some random coincidence. We don't think that. Randomness is the smaller part of the story. Exponential replication of the best replicators is the nugget of understanding most are missing.

Tailor it towards the goal. But be aware of the goals of those who have explanations that sound like yours and don't be surprised if people presume your goals are similar. I don't think Behe would admit that his goal is to obfuscate. In fact I think he'd say he's being "academically rigorous"-- I call that dishonesty... though I know you'd have your excuses as to why this isn't so.

 

[Meadmaker]

and so he spreads this nebulous concept of evolution that so many people have.

I'm curious about something. Which of his writings have you actually read? Anything beyond Kitzmiller?

I've only read a couple of articles myself. One or two by him. Several about him. And of course the Kitzmiller transcript.


I ask this because, in the limited amount of reading I've done of his stuff, his description of evolution sounds closer to yours than it does to mijo's or mine. That's just my impression, but that's what it seems to me.

 

[articulett]

I'm curious about something. Which of his writings have you actually read? Anything beyond Kitzmiller?

I've only read a couple of articles myself. One or two by him. Several about him. And of course the Kitzmiller transcript.


I ask this because, in the limited amount of reading I've done of his stuff, his description of evolution sounds closer to yours than it does to mijo's or mine. That's just my impression, but that's what it seems to me.

Yes... I know... that's because you think you know and understand natural selection or what the misunderstanding is with creationists or what the wedge strategy is about, but you don't.

To a trained ear it's like saying "poker is random because the cards are dealt at random and someone could have gas and make a weird facial impression that gives people the wrong clue as to what they have"... it's not wrong-- it just make Poker sound as random as roulette and misses the distinguishing and important difference. The non-randomness. But if Dawkins can't explain this to people such as yourself or the peer reviewed articles or Talk Origins or Berkely-- then I don't even imagine that I can. Yes, I've muddled through Behe-- he's incomprehensible and muddled like the explanation above in regards to Poker. And you and Mijo sound similarly muddled to anyone who understands Dawkins or the Selfish Gene or who teach the topic or who defended evolution at the Kitzmiller trial.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm just stirring the pot a little more.

While I don't expect anyone to take this as an authoratative source, I still this is interesting because of what it is and where I found: a calm reasoned discussion of the randomness of evolution on Richard Dawkins' forum. The OP says Basically what I have been saying about how an random process with random inputs (e.g., natural selection working on random mutation) can have ordered results (e.g., adaptive optimization).

Does anyone have comments on this especially in light of the material I posted from Kimura, Bell, and Moran?

 

[Meadmaker]

To a trained ear it's like saying "poker is random because the cards are dealt at random and someone could have gas and make a weird facial impression that gives people the wrong clue as to what they have"... it's not wrong-- it just make Poker sound as random as roulette and misses the distinguishing and important difference. The non-randomness.

I guess my ear must need more training, because I missed that part.

 

[six7s]

I guess my ear must need more training, because I missed that part.

Thanks to a 'lay' vocabulary combined with a minimal depth of knowledge (and the bewildereing breadth) relating to evolutionary science, my ears are practically tone deaf

As a result, the ambiguity regarding the word 'random' confused me to the point of frustration

Luckily, the links provided by the 'purist camp' helped clarify at least this one aspect

If you want to help readers like me, please use clear, simple definitions to describe concepts that are only complicated by ambiguous interpretations of common terms

 

[jimbob]

Six7s, does "probabilistic", hinder your understanding?

Given that "random" does have a precise, technical meaning that (despite articulett's assertions) is accepted by biologists.

In fact many of the seminal figures in statistics were also important biologists, see "Ronald Fisher"

He was described by Anders Hald as "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"[1] and Richard Dawkins described him as "the greatest of Darwin's successors".[2]

"random", can be misleading, "non-random" is wrong. "Probabilistic" is not incorrect in describing natural selection, and does not imply "blind chance" to me.

 

[six7s]

Hi jimbob,

Please note: it took me (at least) three goes at getting the Monty Hall problem to make sense

Six7s, does "probabilistic", hinder your understanding?

For me, the term probabilistic is better than 'random', which - due to its widespread use/misuse - is so vague as to be worse than meaningless; I can infer a variety of conflicting meanings depending upon the context of where it appears and what else is on my mind

Despite, or perhaps because probabilistic is a bit of a mouthful, I'm less likely to misinterpret the intent of the author (esp if/when it is represented in/alongside mathematical notation/jargon), simply because it and 'probability' imply (to me) a strict meaning...

Words huh?

Thanks for the link to Fisher... interesting reading... and, as if I needed reminding how words and context have impact, the word eugenics, followed by "which he saw as a pressing social as well as scientific issue" leaped from the screen!

 

[Meadmaker]

Hi jimbob,

Please note: it took me (at least) three goes at getting the Monty Hall problem to make sense

If its the one I'm thinking of, (switch or don't switch) I got it wrong on the homework assignment, and I still have to think slowly in order to explain it. If I were not absolutely certain what the right answer was, I think I would still get it wrong.

 

[jimbob]

Hi jimbob,

Please note: it took me (at least) three goes at getting the Monty Hall problem to make sense



For me, the term probabilistic is better than 'random', which - due to its widespread use/misuse - is so vague as to be worse than meaningless; I can infer a variety of conflicting meanings depending upon the context of where it appears and what else is on my mind

Despite, or perhaps because probabilistic is a bit of a mouthful, I'm less likely to misinterpret the intent of the author (esp if/when it is represented in/alongside mathematical notation/jargon), simply because it and 'probability' imply (to me) a strict meaning...

Words huh?

Thanks for the link to Fisher... interesting reading... and, as if I needed reminding how words and context have impact, the word eugenics, followed by "which he saw as a pressing social as well as scientific issue" leaped from the screen!

Thanks,

I have been assuming that I am talking to an audience with the basic nous to understand a moderatly subtle argument, and you have showed me to be correct...

Despite, or perhaps because probabilistic is a bit of a mouthful, I'm less likely to misinterpret the intent of the author (esp if/when it is represented in/alongside mathematical notation/jargon), simply because it and 'probability' imply (to me) a strict meaning...

Exactly. I also feel it is slightly less "scary" than "stochastic", as it does have an everyday meaning, but unlike "random" this is not essentially different from the technical meaning.


With respect to the "eugenics" quote, I always find it useful to be reminded that being a great scientist says nothing about your ethics or morality. And I prefer the morals and viewopoint of a modern western "small-L" liberal secularist to those attitudes that were prevalent even thirty years ago...

But the eugenics quote does have some relevance to my preference for describing the outcome (which particular "choice" of optimum) as random.

If "the under-evolved" are outbreading the "superior" breed, then the definition of "evolved" requires a "direction".​

As production of reproducing copies is the only "goal" that I recognise in evolution, the indented statement is nonsensical, as it is axiomatically incorrect; if one wanted to talk about this ugly subject at all.

I am a liberal fundamentalist


Jim

 

[jimbob]

Yes... I know... that's because you think you know and understand natural selection or what the misunderstanding is with creationists or what the wedge strategy is about, but you don't.

To a trained ear it's like saying "poker is random because the cards are dealt at random and someone could have gas and make a weird facial impression that gives people the wrong clue as to what they have"...

May I suggest that with all due respect to the training of your ear, it is oversensitive and far more likely to give false-positives than false-negatives in the "test for creationism"..