Intelligent design's predictions

[cyborg]

It's not like I haven't seen it before but whilst everyone is too attached to their words no progress will occur.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It's not like I haven't seen it before but whilst everyone is too attached to their words no progress will occur.

The technical definition is the technical definition. That should be acknowledged in any serious discussion about it. If a process can pragmatically be handled in a purely causal/deterministic manner, then fine. But that's a 'for all intents and purposes' arrangement and I have no idea why some people foster such an adamant rejection of that.

 

[cyborg]

The technical definition is the technical definition. That should be acknowledged in any serious discussion about it.

Technical defintions are not written in stone for one - they are constructed to enable clarity of communication, precision of defintion and easy of manipulation. If a new way of constructing such a definition can increase any of these it can replace an old way.

For another technical definitions in different domains can often conflict - and they tend to do so all the time.

That should definitely be acknowledged in any serious discussion.

If a process can pragmatically be handled in a purely causal/deterministic manner, then fine. But that's a 'for all intents and purposes' arrangement

As if there were any other. The problem is with being unable to be flexible to construct models appropriately - there is too much emphasis on what is "true".

 

[quixotecoyote]

I see nothing to disagree with in that post. I may disagree with how you choose to apply those points.

 

[JoeEllison]

The technical definition is the technical definition. That should be acknowledged in any serious discussion about it.

Just as soon as we start firing research papers at each other, we should stick to the sole use of technical definitions.

In this specific situation(the ID propaganda machine, not necessarily this thread), the word "random" is used in a generally deceptive way, which explains why some people would prefer to use terms that carry the technical meaning forward, while not carrying the same informal connotations that "random" contains.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Just as soon as we start firing research papers at each other, we should stick to the sole use of technical definitions.

In this specific situation(the ID propaganda machine, not necessarily this thread), the word "random" is used in a generally deceptive way, which explains why some people would prefer to use terms that carry the technical meaning forward, while not carrying the same informal connotations that "random" contains.

I can get behind that. I joined this thread because I was a bit peeved at the abuse mijo was taking for suggesting that random was correct. Apparently for the specific definition of random that is correct, yet those on the pro-random side still got smeared as creationist Behes despite endorsing evolution.

Yes there may be better words to use, but they will carry the meaning of the same definition; probabilistic processes. How probabilistic is another matter entirely, but it's a necessary framework to have in place for the understanding.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm sorry Articulett, but I must comment on one point. Mijo is quite correct that evolution by means of natural selection does not equal increase in complexity. It equals adaptation to environment. While that often translates into increased complexity (though we haven't really defined what that word means), it may also result from an apparent decrease in complexity from the phenotyoic perspective by simply turning off sets of genes. Some parasites appear phenotypically less complex though they may have the same genetic heritage as their "more complex" brethren.

As for the rest I'll ask in this thread what I did in the others. Can't you guys try to see the middle ground? You are so stuck on the use of a particular word that you are missing the real teaching points.

 

[JoeEllison]

I can get behind that. I joined this thread because I was a bit peeved at the abuse mijo was taking for suggesting that random was correct. Apparently for the specific definition of random that is correct, yet those on the pro-random side still got smeared as creationist Behes despite endorsing evolution.

Yes there may be better words to use, but they will carry the meaning of the same definition; probabilistic processes. How probabilistic is another matter entirely, but it's a necessary framework to have in place for the understanding.

I think it was the insistence on the word "random" that created the suspicions and accusations... because, on some level, it seems that only a creationist like Behe would insist on using the word, for ideological reasons. Those without an axe to grind would seem more willing to use a different word to express the same information.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think it was the insistence on the word "random" that created the suspicions and accusations... because, on some level, it seems that only a creationist like Behe would insist on using the word, for ideological reasons. Those without an axe to grind would seem more willing to use a different word to express the same information.

I can understand that, except I aborted a similar battle in the other thread when the people here claiming random=behe were cheerfully promoting intelligent design as a way to teach evolution in the other thread and mocking people who suggested the analogy was too close to IDiocy.

<sigh>

You can't win 'em all I guess.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think it was the insistence on the word "random" that created the suspicions and accusations... because, on some level, it seems that only a creationist like Behe would insist on using the word, for ideological reasons. Those without an axe to grind would seem more willing to use a different word to express the same information.

I think that is only partially true. I, for one, entered one of the early arguments over using the term, but when it was clear that the mathematicians were simply trying to use one of their mathematical terms in biology I let it go because they weren't saying anything new, only using an unfamiliar term in a new way (for biology). What raised my hackles was the insistence that evolution is fundamentally random. There is nothing fundamental about the random aspects of evolution aside from the very real possibility that everything is essentially non-deterministic.

Random is merely a code word for "we are ignorant", so we have to speak in terms of probabilities. That is not a fundamental aspect of reality. As cyborg said, there has always been too much emphasis on what is "true" in these discussions. The whole exercise is a muddled confusion over differing levels of explanation.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If a mutation is caused by a cosmic ray, it is, for all intents and purposes, random. And it is truly random if the cosmic ray was caused by a quantum event that is truly random (assuming quantum events really are truly random). I think it is fair to say that evolution has a truly random component and so is a stochastic process.

I just think it's misleading to say "evolution is random full stop." Someone who insists on saying so would appear to me to have some kind of agenda. At the very least, they should agree to say "absolutely everything is random."

~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If a mutation is caused by a cosmic ray, it is, for all intents and purposes, random. And it is truly random if the cosmic ray was caused by a quantum event that is truly random (assuming quantum events really are truly random). I think it is fair to say that evolution has a truly random component and so is a stochastic process.

I just think it's misleading to say "evolution is random full stop." Someone who insists on saying so would appear to me to have some kind of agenda. At the very least, they should agree to say:

[latex]$\forall x \, x \mathrm{is\,random}$[/latex]

~~ Paul

Yes, but that is not a major part of the process, especially when sex is involved. I think we all agree that random processes are involved, though it is entirely possible as well that our view of the cosmic ray is simply one aspect of our ignorance rather than being truly random. Yes, we can't predict it. But, there may be some deeper explanation that a future Einstein or Heisenberg has not yet conceived to explain this as a local expression of some deeper 'determined' system. There are instances what we would all probably agree are random in the full explanation, but that does not make evolution a fundmanetally random process -- just one that may have random elements at times.

I think most of us agree that it is misleading to call evolution 'random full stop'. We've been through the various levels of explanation over and over again, so I don't think we need repeat them here.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm not entirely sure that anyone ever called it random full-stop. Even mijo qualified it from the beginning with a very specific definition that took into account convergences upon expected values. I think Joe hit it head on with random just being too provocative a label for some people.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not entirely sure that anyone ever called it random full-stop. Even mijo qualified it from the beginning with a very specific definition that took into account convergences upon expected values. I think Joe hit it head on with random just being too provocative a label for some people.

You may or may not be aware that this discussion has a long history.

It has been called fundamentally random, entirely random, etc, etc. at various times.

It always centers on the mathematical use of the term, but Mijo has been put into such a defensive position that I think he occasionally oversteps the line. When he uses the term as he has in this thread I don't think most people disagree.

Articulett is approaching this from the perspective of being a biology teacher, so she enters defensive mode whenever she hears the word "random" in relation to evolution.

We have discussed using other terms than random, but that actually doesn't get very far. Mijo has often substituted 'stochastic' himself.

Largely this is about different cultures clashing.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I've seen snippets of it before, but this is the first thread length one I've been involved in.

I didn't realize you were referring to references beyond scope of this thread. What you just said makes sense to me.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm not entirely sure that anyone ever called it random full-stop.

Seems to me that T'ai does. These folks who like to refer to it as random without any clarification: Do they refer to everything else as random, too?

Hey kids, did you know that computation is random?

~~ Paul

 

[Wowbagger]

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

Well, of course they would. But, I hope you now recognize that they are only doing so for their own models and convenience:

From your first citation:

Instead of considering populations as aggregates of genes, we find it more convenient to consider populations as aggregates of gene frequencies (or ratios).

(emphasis mine)
See, more convenient for his models. He is not claiming reality really works this way. There is no reason to assume nature calculates aggregate frequencies. Nature is able to work with all the data, as inputs, at once.

From your second citation:

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.

This example illustrates what I said before: If all the variables were known to an arbitrary degree, we could predict these things to an arbitrary accuracy. But, it is not possible for us to determine all of these inputs: which birds are poised to eat which snails, etc.
Chaos theory, and weather prediction, and all that.

Selection could be thought of as a "process of sampling", but that sampling is not as random in reality as our models make it out to be.

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.

It depends on the definitions. In one usage of the words, you are right: Evolution does not necessarily need to be random or non-random. But, in others, there is clear enough evidence on one case or the other.

It's not like I haven't seen it before but whilst everyone is too attached to their words no progress will occur.

But, semantics wars are fun!

As for the rest I'll ask in this thread what I did in the others. Can't you guys try to see the middle ground? You are so stuck on the use of a particular word that you are missing the real teaching points.

What do you think I'm trying to do?!

I am trying to demonstrate how and why randomness is used in the study of evolution, which makes the "random fans" happy, so they know they are not wasting their time.

At the same time, I am also trying to demonstrate that our study models do not necessarily reflect reality which could well be non-random. So, this keeps the purist "non-rand fans" agreeable.

Is there anything wrong with that?

If a mutation is caused by a cosmic ray, it is, for all intents and purposes, random. And it is truly random if the cosmic ray was caused by a quantum event that is truly random (assuming quantum events really are truly random). I think it is fair to say that evolution has a truly random component and so is a stochastic process.

(emphasis mine). Exactly re-iterating my points. We call it random, for all intents and purposes, because we can not possibly enter all those billions of cosmic rays into our equations.

And, yes, you could say everything is truly random, at the quantum level. But, for our purposes, we can safely ignore the quantum level when we study evolution. (otherwise, there would be even more impossible numbers of inputs in our equations, and we would never make any progress!)

I just think it's misleading to say "evolution is random full stop." Someone who insists on saying so would appear to me to have some kind of agenda. At the very least, they should agree to say "absolutely everything is random."

They could have an agenda. Or, they could simply have a too-basic understanding. Before you accuse one of an agenda, though, it is best to have evidence. Otherwise, it might be better assume innocent ignorance. (this is general advice, not specific to any posters here.)

No one is born with the ability to understand evolution, and no one should be punished for not getting it right, as long as they accept what they learned, as they learn it.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Seems to me that T'ai does. These folks who like to refer to it as random without any clarification: Do they refer to everything else as random, too?

Hey kids, did you know that computation is random?

~~ Paul

I have T'ai on ignore, so I wouldn't know. He may very well have.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm sorry Articulett, but I must comment on one point. Mijo is quite correct that evolution by means of natural selection does not equal increase in complexity. It equals adaptation to environment. While that often translates into increased complexity (though we haven't really defined what that word means), it may also result from an apparent decrease in complexity from the phenotyoic perspective by simply turning off sets of genes. Some parasites appear phenotypically less complex though they may have the same genetic heritage as their "more complex" brethren.

This brings up an important point -- shouldn't complexity be somehow measured by what went into a thing, as opposed to what it is?

Suppose you start with a huge genome, of random stuff, and then start deactivating to get a functional genome that actually does something. By what measurement, other than what I suggested above, could the refined one be considered "more complex?"

This approach seems like it would run into trouble, though, in all the cases where we don't know the process that led a thing to be.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What do you think I'm trying to do?!

I am trying to demonstrate how and why randomness is used in the study of evolution, which makes the "random fans" happy, so they know they are not wasting their time.

At the same time, I am also trying to demonstrate that our study models do not necessarily reflect reality which could well be non-random. So, this keeps the purist "non-rand fans" agreeable.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Of course not. I wasn't referring to you, though, since you obviously already see the middle ground, but to Mijo and Articulett. This feud has festered far too long.