• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent design's predictions

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Notice how you are qualifying your terse statement that "evolution is a stochastic process." That's all I was asking for.
Click to expand...

Considering I've had a webpage article up since 9/05 on this very topic, I'm underwhelmed by your pretending that you have just noticed this or that I am supposedly just now qualifying something. :)
 
T'ai said:
Considering I've had a webpage article up since 9/05 on this very topic, I'm underwhelmed by your pretending that you have just noticed this or that I am supposedly just now qualifying something.
Click to expand...
I've never looked at your web page and it's the first time in my memory of conversations with you that you've done much in the way of qualifying. But I still don't understand why you want your sig line to look as if you're a hardcase on this issue.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
The basic problem with the argument for those who insist that evolution is non-random so far is not a scientific argument; it is a philosophical one.
 
The basic problem with those who insist that evolution IS random, is that they sound like Behe. On planet reality, we generally describe evolution as a two part process-- mutation (which is more or less random) and selection which selects from that randomness. Biologists don't consider that random... nor do they consider the results random. It's not philosophy-- it's clarity. Evolution is a fact. And those who wish others to understand those facts, use words that convey information. Those who don't understand evolution (but think they do) and those that don't want others to understand evolution (like Behe) seem to need to focus on the word random to obsessive extremes-- and they never change... never get a clue... and attack others when it's pointed out (per Behe's Amazon blog.)

BTW, here is a letter to the obfuscating Michael Behe posted at the Panda's thumb that those interested in evolution might find illuminating.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/11/an-open-letter-4.html
 
Those who understand that evolution is non-random aren't the ones with the problem

You mijo, and your cronies do have a problem

either insufficient skills with regard to language and research

and/or a woo infested head​
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
Those who understand that evolution is non-random aren't the ones with the problem

You mijo, and your cronies do have a problem

either insufficient skills with regard to language and research

and/or a woo infested head​
Click to expand...

And an egotistical belief that they have expertise on the subject. Mijo came to this forum less than a year ago not understanding the "discontinuity in the fossil record"-- and I'm not sure he could explain it now despite pages of careful explanations by some very smart forum members. And somehow, between now and then, he's declared himself an expert on the subject. Will wonders never cease? High esteem and unshakable ideology is a bad mix, and not subject to ready remedy.

I wonder what makes him think his opinion on this subject has any value and why he keeps inserting himself as a self appointed expert whenever the subject turns to evolution. Does anyone think Mijo understands natural selection or that he can convey it better than Behe? Because I cannot fathom where his confidence is coming from-- unless it's "faith".
 
Last edited:
The basic problem with those that argue that evolution is non-random is that they (excluding Paul and Wowbagger) lack sufficient finesse to distinguish a scientific argument from a philosophical one and science from woo. aritculett, cyborg, and Ichneumonwasp all have their magic phrase that excuse them from presenting any evidence that evolution is non-random: "nothing is truly random", "infinite machine", and "deterministic scheme", respectively. Each one of the phrases and the posts from which they came demonstrates a distinct a priori philosophical aversion to the existence of "true" randomness. The fact is that the empirical evidence points to the fact that the genetic make-up of an individual (which can be established with certainty) does not fully determine its survival and reproduction and the interactions that cause the individual's survival and reproduction cannot be established with absolute certainty and a probably can never be.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
The basic problem with those that argue that evolution is non-random is that they (excluding Paul and Wowbagger) lack sufficient finesse to distinguish a scientific argument from a philosophical one and science from woo. aritculett, cyborg, and Ichneumonwasp all have their magic phrase that excuse them from presenting any evidence that evolution is non-random: "nothing is truly random", "infinite machine", and "deterministic scheme", respectively. Each one of the phrases and the posts from which they came demonstrates a distinct a priori philosophical aversion to the existence of "true" randomness. The fact is that the empirical evidence points to the fact that the genetic make-up of an individual (which can be established with certainty) does not fully determine its survival and reproduction and the interactions that cause the individual's survival and reproduction cannot be established with absolute certainty and a probably can never be.
Click to expand...

Could you possily try to get my position more wrong? I would really like to know what you have been reading since you obviously haven't read anything that I have written. What in the world possessed you to link to a previous discussion of how words are used colloquially if you are determined to show my supposedly inflexible attitude toward this issue?

Is this a joke? You can't possibly be serious with such a reply.

ETA:
Let me just add this: I specifically asked you earlier if you honestly thought that anyone was structuring an argument based on phenotypic determinism (a question that you did not answer; instead you decided to plunge off into another tangent, so I asked again, and again you did not answer) so as to disabuse you of that notion. Yet that is precisely the argument that you are putting into our mouths. Just how stupid do you think we are?
 
Last edited:
I told you so.

Look at the Behe link above... it's just bob and weave and do everything you can so that he can end up describing evolution as "random"--no matter how unclear, misleading, and inane that is. None of the experts do it. No peer reviewed journal defines "random" as loosely as he does... and just like Kleinman he ducks and changes the subject and comes back with the same tired "evolution is random"-- just like Behe.

He imagines himself an expert... just like Behe. Although he has not successfully conveyed understanding of evolution to anyone... just like Behe. And he gets it topsy turvy. No amount of explanation--even peer reviewed sources from the experts will get him to change... just like Behe. Read Behe's amazon blog... it's the same dodge, ad homs, self aggrandizement, and dishonesty. Moreover, he calls the truth tellers liars.

You'd think that he'd come back after so many people have vouched for his integrity and thank them for their insight and concede that maybe he really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about... and maybe he really doesn't understand natural selection... and maybe he shouldn't imagine himself an expert. But like Behe... and T'ai... it's an endless loop.

Remember, creationists are NEVER honest about what they are. Never. Don't mistake your honesty for his. And don't imagine he's about to make a breakthrough. He won't.

He believes himself more of an expert than Dawkins and everyone here... although he cannot tell you anything about natural selection or the "discontinuity" in the fossil record. And just like Behe... he ISN'T saying anything. He's never said anything useful.

Mutations must work in whatever environment they find themselves in and whatever random events happen in that environment, or they die out. Pretending that is random is just dishonest and nutso.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is your argument, Ichneumonwasp?

Mine has always been that because phenotype does not full determine survival and reproduction, evolution is a stochastic process taking the phenotype as the initial conditions for selection. This is the argument which articulett and cyborg have been so vehemently rejecting. There is always some vague causal and deterministic structure of the individual's interactions with the environment and how that effect survival and reproduction, but that misses the central point of my argument which is that, regardless of the causes, effect is that individuals of the same phenotype do not necessarily share the same fate.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
He believes himself more of an expert than Dawkins and everyone here... although he cannot tell you anything about natural selection or the "discontinuity" in the fossil record.
Click to expand...

Why do keep ignoring the fact that a retracted the posts where a discussed said discontinuity?
 
Mijo... go watch the Nova program on the Dover trial. Then when you have a basic understanding in evolution and how Intelligent Design is not science, others might take you a little more seriously. You are muddled sounding. You aren't saying anything. You're flipping your explanation mid sentence and your perspective in order to call evolution random.
 
articulett said:
Mijo... go watch the Nova program on the Dover trial. Then when you have a basic understanding in evolution and how Intelligent Design is not science, others might take you a little more seriously. You are muddled sounding. You aren't saying anything. You're flipping your explanation mid sentence and your perspective in order to call evolution random.
Click to expand...

How exactly am I "flipping [my] explanation mid sentence and [my]perspective in order to call evolution random"?
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
What exactly is your argument, Ichneumonwasp?

Mine has always been that because phenotype does not full determine survival and reproduction, evolution is a stochastic process taking the phenotype as the initial conditions for selection. This is the argument which articulett and cyborg have been so vehemently rejecting. There is always some vague causal and deterministic structure of the individual's interactions with the environment and how that effect survival and reproduction, but that misses the central point of my argument which is that, regardless of the causes, effect is that individuals of the same phenotype do not necessarily share the same fate.
Click to expand...

I have argued over and over that it is the perspective one takes that produces this confusion.

So, we take the example of an asteroid hitting the earth. Your argument says we can't predict that, so it is a random event. The dinosaurs' phenotype did not help them survive, so random occurrences play into the mix. They would have been fine without the asteroid, but "boom" and unpredictably they are dead.

Their viewpoint is that dinosaurs' phenotypes do answer the question. It is just that there is a new selection pressure in the environment that permits the little mammals and little reptiles to live while the behemoths die. And there is nothing truly random about the asteroid because if we had the proper knowledge we could have predicted not only the hit but the consequences of the hit. "Random" is merely surrogate for human ignorance.

If you look too closely at the process you have no choice but to speak in term of probabilities. From a further distance, it all looks more deterministic.

There are, of course, (probably) truly random occurrences at subatomic levels. Few, if any, doubt that seriously. Those random occurrences can and do impact the evolutionary process, but for the most part when we use that word we only mean it as a surrogate. We know so little that we are forced to speak of probabilities. That is why we developed the mathematics of probability in the first place -- so that we could speak intelligibly of such things. But those probabilities are not the realities (unless we assume Heisenberg's uncertainty rules all; Schrodinger and his cat certainly didn't think so for the macro level). They are just an approximation of what goes on in the universe because we can't know it all.

From one possible way of looking at it (very close), everything is random (it's all ruled by the uncertainty principle); from another, and with enough knowledge of the smeared particulars, everything is determined. What you are doing is arguing from a middle ground and applying a word of convenience. There is nothing wrong with that, but you need to be aware of what you are describing. That middle ground of description creates all the confusion in the free-will debate. I think it serves the same function here as well.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
The basic problem with the argument for those who insist that evolution is non-random so far is not a scientific argument; it is a philosophical one.
Click to expand...

What's the problem with that?
Do you regard crystallisation as a random process? No-body can predict which exact atom goes where. No-body can predict every imperfection in a crystal. Etc.

And yet clearly, the result of crystallisation is a structure with a pattern. Where before there was no pattern.

If you want a strict definiton of a random process as one where the outcome is not accurately determined, then fine. But that is not every possible sense of random.

A process which sorts random input is not one which I would regard as a random process. Which is why, when saying that evolution is random, I think a qualification is required. Evolution is random like crystallisation is random.
 
mijopaalmc said:
The fact is that the empirical evidence points to the fact that the genetic make-up of an individual (which can be established with certainty) does not fully determine its survival and reproduction and the interactions that cause the individual's survival and reproduction cannot be established with absolute certainty and a probably can never be.
Click to expand...
This is all true, near as I can tell.

However, one of the points I was making is that the other factors that determine survival and reproduction fall into the fitness landscape. If we can know absolutely everything about both the genes and the landscape, evolution would be very determinable (if there is such a word). Of course, we probably never can know all that stuff.

We call evolution "stochastic" because it is difficult to predict its outcomes to any precise degree. Not because it is really random. (That is why Tai's sig is so misleading.)

mijopaalmc said:
The basic problem with those that argue that evolution is non-random is that they (excluding Paul and Wowbagger) lack sufficient finesse to distinguish a scientific argument from a philosophical one and science from woo.
aritculett, cyborg, and Ichneumonwasp all have their magic phrase that excuse them from presenting any evidence that evolution is non-random:
(snip)
Click to expand...
Well, thanks for excluding me from your list of philosophers. But, I must defend my friends on this forum, when they are right (and, as you know, I am willing to call them out when they are wrong).

I severely doubt articulett, cyborg, Ichneumonwasp, etc. have the problems you think they do. There is nothing in their posts, on this thread, that indicates they can not separate science from woo. Maybe they are just not as good as communicating science to you, as I happen to be*. But, if you take the time to study what they are trying to say, you will find they are more-often-than-not based on solid science.

(* Not sure why that would be, though. It might be a matter of patience rather than writing ability.)

Of course, it does not help matters, when participants choose to spit ad homs and accusations, instead of arguments and explanations. (And, I will not defend any of that behavior.) But, if you are really willing to learn anything from any Internet forum, you have to make some effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

mijopaalmc said:
Mine has always been that because phenotype does not full determine survival and reproduction,
Click to expand...
I agree. But, once again, I must remind you that the other factors that determine these things are known.

mijopaalmc said:
This is the argument which articulett and cyborg have been so vehemently rejecting. There is always some vague causal and deterministic structure of the individual's interactions with the environment and how that effect survival and reproduction, but that misses the central point of my argument which is that, regardless of the causes, effect is that individuals of the same phenotype do not necessarily share the same fate.
Click to expand...
I think you are missing something. articulett and cyborg can correct me if I am wrong, but I think they would both agree with my points: Yes, the genome and its subsequent phenotypes are not the sole determination of survival and reproduction. That is why evolution is stochastic: difficult to predict. There is also the fitness landscape to take into consideration. Taken together (perhaps with elements of self-organizing complexity laws?), the process is no longer random.

Maybe their language was not clear enough for some people. Or, I could be wrong, and they really do think the way you think they do. Either way, I'd like some feedback from my friends' assessment of these points.

mijopaalmc said:
The basic problem with the argument for those who insist that evolution is non-random so far is not a scientific argument; it is a philosophical one.
Click to expand...
If that is true, then it follows that the basic reason why we can never predict exactly where a hurricane will strike is not due to lack of scientific accuracy, it must be because hurricanes are merely philosophical. ;)

(If you think there is some aspect of the natural process of evolution that is really, truly, random, then you tell us what it is.)
 
But anyway, back to the topic of the thread.

Isn't one of the predictions that "junk" DNA will be found to have actual use?
 
Or, I could be wrong, and they really do think the way you think they do.
Click to expand...

There are numerous "correct" models that can be used. mijo doesn't seem to like this but it's an artefact of what it means "to model".
 
To be fair, ID would have to predict that junk DNA has a purpose, since everything must have a purpose in ID (not that they actually predicted it, but that is beside the point).

The problem, of course, is that even with "junk DNA" playing a regulatory role, this does not provide support for ID. Besides, there is only evidence for the regulatory role being played for some regions of junk DNA. ID would need to postulate that all junk DNA plays a necessary role. There simply is no evidence of this.

IIRC the folks who predicted that junk DNA should have some actual function according to ID were detractors of ID. It just turns out that some of it does serve some function, which is really interesting and one of those things that keeps us all interested in science.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom