Intelligent design's predictions

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

I don't know. It seems to me that 'complexity' is one of those ambiguous descriptors dangerously designed to create complete confusion.

 

[FireGarden]

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?

Questions such as you ask can be asked of sieving. How big should the holes be? What should go in it? How long should it be shaken?

Nobody refers to sieving as random because of questions like that. Nobody refers to sieving as random because some of the flour goes through the holes and some of the flour sticks to the sieve.

If you can call sieving flour a random process, then feel free to call evolution random.

If you can call the formation of a crystal random because, after all, every crystal has imperfections, then feel free to call evolution random.

I don't regard it as useful.

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.

The point about treating the variation as random is to assume that the variation isn't itself designed to bring about a particular change. Mutations don't occur with an aim. They are aimless. Random in that sense.

Evolution works even then. It does not require purpose in the variation.

But the selection doesn't remove the randomness.

So if you put random objects in a sieve, some small enough to go through... That selection isn't removing any randomness?

Not every variation adding to fitness is selected for and not every variation detracting from fitness is selected against.

Not every grain of flour will go through a sieve.

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.

The environment is part of the input to the process. You can't seriously think that sorting is random because the favoured order is arbitrary?

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.

The result is random because the input is random. Not because of the process.

Here's a function:
f(x) = x

Does f produce a random result? Depends where you get x from.

 

[FireGarden]

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.

I think it would work.
Instead of a random bitstream, use 10101010101010101......
The input would no longer be random in the sense you're thinking of. It would be random in the sense of aimless. You will still get variation in the population, the variation will be sorted -- even imperfectly, but still sorted.

The only thing that could go wrong is if someone found an input which produced very little or no variation; or variation specifically lacking anything useful.

That doesn't happen in real life.
There is no mechanism that ensures every mutation is harmful. If there were -- evolution wouldn't work.

There is no mechanism that ensures every difference makes no difference. If there were -- evolution wouldn't work.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Seems to me that T'ai does.

Well let's see Paul. I like to use precise definitions. If a process is stochastic, calling it stochastic is fine. If you don't feel comfortable calling it that for teaching purposes like it can be misleading to newbies, that's an issue you'll have to deal with, but not feeling comfortable doesn't make the correct label of 'stochastic process' inaccurate.

These folks who like to refer to it as random without any clarification: Do they refer to everything else as random, too?

Well let's see Paul. Since from the beginning I've said natural selection is non-random, the answer to your question is obviously not.

 

[articulett]

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.

It actually does... but it's irrelevant... especially since it's hard to define complexity units... but it's a pretty simple algorithm... more here--
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/Pagel.html

In the way that technology or the internet must move forward... that is true for genomes... the information drives itself forward, branches off, or dies out. But because complexity has more to with the regulation of information--how it's assembled and not measurable bits and pieces, the notion causes confusion. And you first have to understand what is being "selected" and why (selfish gene) and how it drives "complexity" and the appearance of design over time. The rest follows. When we say a recipe is complex...we don't mean that it necessarily has more ingredients... but people-- sometimes associate complexity with the amount of matter... rather than how it's assembled over time...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well let's see Paul. Since from the beginning I've said natural selection is non-random, the answer to your question is obviously not.

That's good. But then why does your sig line say:

Evolution is a stochastic process. Stochastic means random. That's not any type of 'misleading', that's a scientific fact.

Either you should agree that "evolution is a stochastic process" is misleading, or you should agree that "everything is a stochastic process" is also not misleading.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

Either you should agree that "evolution is a stochastic process" is misleading, or you should agree that "everything is a stochastic process" is also not misleading.

Not at all. Simply because there are many things (natural selection for one) that are not stochastic. But since evolution is more than just natural selection, it is proper to call evolution stochastic, despite if you're uncomfortable with the term.

 

[Wowbagger]

Creationists say evolution is flawed.
Person X says evolution is flawed.
Therefore, Person X must be a creationist!

What is the name of that fallacy?

I think one of the problems on this Forum is that people get awfully reactionary, when someone tries to dispute evolution in some way. Most of us are passionate in our acceptance of evolution as fact. So, anyone who even remotely tries to argue that there could be something wrong with some part of it, gets labeled a "Creationist!", even if they are not purporting any supernatural causes in its place.

But, not all who challenge some aspect of evolution are creationists. They might be woos of another sort, or perhaps their understanding of the theory is flawed or incomplete, or (on rare occasion) they might even have a valid point.

For example: I was reading some of Stuart Kauffman's old materials, lately, and he argues natural selection, as it is often described, is not powerful enough on its own, to explain all this stuff; so he introduces concepts of self-organization to the equations. You can agree or disagree with that, but you can not call Kauffman a creationist. He is NOT indicating there is any creation or ID element involved!
(My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that all this self-organization stuff could be valid, but just becomes part of the fitness landscape, and is not really a completely new element. But, I would rather not discuss Kauffman here. I was merely using him as a clear example of someone who challenges some aspects of evolution, yet who is not a creationist.)

 

[articulett]

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.

My feud has more to do with people like Behe who act like they are knowledgeable on a subject by making others feel ignorant-- when if fact it's their own ignorance and hubris that keeps them from conveying information usefully. It's those who talk as though they are experts, when they are clearly full of BS that I will interject upon. A million people have explained why it's misleading to use language the way Behe does-- why it's dishonest even... so if someone wants to continue using it, while pretending to be knowledgeable on a subject he's not really knowledgeable on-- I'll speak out just as I would if Behe were here obfuscating. Because I think evolution is worth understanding. And I think there are some people who imagine themselves as having expertise they do not have. Moreover, these same people often dis Dawkins... though they haven't read him or anything recent on the topic and might actually offer something useful if they did-- or referred their audience to such.

(If their goal is to communicate rather than to obfuscate or declare themselves experts, that is.) I can and have agreed that per their definition of evolution, evolution is random-- but so is everything... hence it's a useless definition... moreover it's THE definition that ID uses because, as Dawkins repeatedly notes, it's to obscure the real point and key to Darwins theory-- Natural selection--exponential increase of winning information over time.

If you don't understand this when you're young... and you grow up thinking that you do understand evolution-- then you end up growing up sounding like Tai and Behe and Mijo-- and I find it impervious and a sad shame. Read the links I provided. If you can understand them... it's because of what you understand about evolution--and I think you can see the power of what is being conveyed. But Mijo and Behe and Ta'i can't compute. They haven't even got the basic tools to understand and they have an exaggerated sense of self importance-- their own, humanity in general, intelligence, plus they have way over estimated their expertise in regards to evolution.

What I am saying is backed up by the people who teach and utilize this information-- experts-- Dawkins, Ridley, Steve Jones, Pinker, Venter, Eugenie Scott-- I'm not pulling any of my information out of my ass-- I don't imagine myself an expert... but I know where to get good information. And I sure know the subject well enough to tell when someone is talking out of their ass.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It actually does... but it's irrelevant... especially since it's hard to define complexity units... but it's a pretty simple algorithm... more here--
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/Pagel.html

In the way that technology or the internet must move forward... that is true for genomes... the information drives itself forward, branches off, or dies out. But because complexity has more to with the regulation of information--how it's assembled and not measurable bits and pieces, the notion causes confusion. And you first have to understand what is being "selected" and why (selfish gene) and how it drives "complexity" and the appearance of design over time. The rest follows. When we say a recipe is complex...we don't mean that it necessarily has more ingredients... but people-- sometimes associate complexity with the amount of matter... whether than how it's assembled over time...

I wasn't referring to the general trend, which I think we all agree shows an increase in complexity (however we define that slippery term), but to specific instances that Gould highlighted in a few essays. Now, I'm going to have to go look 'em up, but I seem to recall a long discussion on lampreys and hagfish that suggested a decrease in complexity (phenotypically) to fit particular adaptations. The exceptions are pretty darn exceptional, but they do appear to exist.

 

[articulett]

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.

Yes, but some people start a thread asking about the non random aspects of evolution and then ignore every single answer to conclude as they always have that the scientists are really saying that "evolution is random". Even after pages and pages of apologetics and careful explanations such as yours. That same person started a thread about the supposed discontinuity in the fossil record and ignored many intelligent peoples very detailed responses to conclude "scientists can't really explain the fossil record". Then he imagines himself an expert on the topic and goes from thread to thread informing people of his lofty opinions that are amazingly identical to Behes-- even the loaded questions... lack of curiosity in the answers... failure to show curiosity on new developments... Now, why would a guy who does not understand why his description of evolution is vague after multiple pages on the topic and a complete opposite and much clearer description from Dawkins and other peer reviewed scientists insist that he knows enough to weigh in on the topic and declare his expertise on this thread. Who recognizes his expertise other than himself? Do you think one day he's going to slap himself on the head and say, "gee, I was being misleading... here let me clear that up...by golly I was completely glossing over natural selection and pretending I understood it when I did not!" Yes... that will happen... on the same day it happens for Behe.

People who are eager to know about evolution are thankful for new information and links and such in the field-- we learn from each other. We are thankful for the knowledge. We are thankful to those who taught us. But those who imagine themselves experts but seem blind to their lack of understanding while insulting or ignoring all those who try to give them the information they pretend to want-- those are people with some sort of agenda. Maybe they are just the incompetents in my sig. But ask yourself what their goal is? What is Mijo's goal. To convey understanding-- to whom? Do you think he understand natural selection any better than Behe? Do you think he's as much of an expert as he seems to think he is? What is his goal-- to get everybody else to sound like Behe-- "evolution is all about randomness!"
And that would be beneficial to whom... and how?

Those who understand evolution on this forum aim to nip the creationist strawman in the bud when it appears-- but there's mijo assuring us (along with Tai) that Behe is correct and evolution is all about randomness...

Sure Mijo infers that science can explain how this randomness results in the appearance of design. But he sure as hell can't.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

My feud has more to do with people like Behe who act like they are knowledgeable on a subject by making others feel ignorant-- when if fact it's their own ignorance and hubris that keeps them from conveying information usefully. It's those who talk as though they are experts, when they are clearly full of BS that I will interject upon. A million people have explained why it's misleading to use language the way Behe does-- why it's dishonest even... so if someone wants to continue using it, while pretending to be knowledgeable on a subject he's not really knowledgeable on-- I'll speak out just as I would if Behe were here obfuscating. Because I think evolution is worth understanding. And I think there are some people who imagine themselves as having expertise they do not have. Moreover, these same people often dis Dawkins... though they haven't read him or anything recent on the topic and might actually offer something useful if they did-- or referred their audience to such.

(If their goal is to communicate rather than to obfuscate or declare themselves experts, that is.) I can and have agreed that per their definition of evolution, evolution is random-- but so is everything... hence it's a useless definition... moreover it's THE definition that ID uses because, as Dawkins repeatedly notes, it's to obscure the real point and key to Darwins theory-- Natural selection--exponential increase of winning information over time.

If you don't understand this when you're young... and you grow up thinking that you do understand evolution-- then you end up growing up sounding like Tai and Behe and Mijo-- and I find it impervious and a sad shame. Read the links I provided. If you can understand them... it's because of what you understand how essential this information is. But Mijo and Behe and Ta'i can't compute. They haven't even got the basic tools to understand and they have an exaggerated sense of self importance-- their own, humanity in general, intelligence, and they have way over estimated their expertise in regards to evolution. What I am saying is backed up by the people who teach and utilize this information-- experts-- Dawkins, Ridley, Steve Jones, Pinker, Venter, Eugenie Scott-- I'm not pulling any of my information out of my ass-- I don't imagine myself an expert... but I know where to get good information. And I sure know the subject well enough to tell when someone is talking out of their ass.

I understand your perspective as a biology teacher. But you could try to reach a middle ground with Mijo. He isn't the devil in disguise, you know. But I must say the same to him, though you're probably going to tell me that you are the devil in disguise, which is going to start a whole new round of people asking to see the disguise and then see you without the disguise and you never know where that is going to lead and I'm not really sure if I can even end this sentence now that it's gone on for so long.........

 

[articulett]

I wasn't referring to the general trend, which I think we all agree shows an increase in complexity (however we define that slippery term), but to specific instances that Gould highlighted in a few essays. Now, I'm going to have to go look 'em up, but I seem to recall a long discussion on lampreys and hagfish that suggested a decrease in complexity (phenotypically) to fit particular adaptations. The exceptions are pretty darn exceptional, but they do appear to exist.

Yes... phenotypically our computers of today are much more simple than the behemoths of yesteryear... but as far as efficiency-- it's forward.

People often confuse the information for what it codes for. In evolution we see snapshots of changes in species over time. But an animal is born the same species it dies... it's the information in it's genome that has the opportunity to live on and evolve-- and its those units of information in that genome that are best at getting themselves copied that drive evolution... and by default better information processors (replicators, storage, recombiners, tweakers, etc.)

 

[articulett]

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

So are you! You're made of atoms... electrons have random spin... any thing with any randomness IS random per Mijo's definition-- therefore-- you, Paul, are random. QED

(But don't feel bad... we all are... liberal definitions allow us all to fit under the same blanket.)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes... phenotypically our computers of today are much more simple than the behemoths of yesteryear... but as far as efficiency-- it's forward.

Yes, if you use the word efficiency instead of complexity, I agree completely. It is adaptation to the environment that drives the process, in conjuction with the available genetic material.

 

[joobz]

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.

I was referring to the random part of evolution, the mutation point.

My argument was that if you could perfectly describe the series of events that go into a mutation (the photons hitting the DNA, the molecular fluctuations that determine if a DNA sequence is translated properly...) it may be possible to indeed remove the random element from that. Same with the dice roll. If you could perfectly describe the initial conditions involved in the roll (molecular gas of air motions, the frictional factors of the table, the angle, velocity and trajectory of the dice upon throughing) is should be possible to predict each dice roll.

This was qayak's point. Random is what we call a chaotic process that we can't predict yet. We may know the set of outcomes, but not enough of the details of the event itself. Wowbanger went one step further to say that we can't know ALL information becuase at the basest level we are limited by heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

[articulett]

I understand your perspective as a biology teacher. But you could try to reach a middle ground with Mijo. He isn't the devil in disguise, you know. But I must say the same to him, though you're probably going to tell me that you are the devil in disguise, which is going to start a whole new round of people asking to see the disguise and then see you without the disguise and you never know where that is going to lead and I'm not really sure if I can even end this sentence now that it's gone on for so long.........

Look, I'm enjoying my role of "goad the pedant".--it's my only form of stress release. Besides, I've already been chastised by a few friends, haven't I earned the right to bear my talons-- I don't mind being called the devil in disguise. He's got quixote and T'ai as cheerleaders. And you and wowbagger are still propping him up.

Don't make me kiss and make up. It's just words. I'm a little woman and this is my arena. I have to do the meek and mild stuff in real life. I promise not to call him a "creationist" anymore, okay? But, damn, I wish he's stop pretending to be an expert in an area where the experts are telling him he hasn't got a clue. I think you are unaware of just how much he does this. And he truly has said much worse stuff about me. Can I help it if my ability to use language is more powerful?

I know my genetics. I understand evolution. I am very well educated on the subject--both self educated and via classes. I am more than willing to learn more. I don't really take well to those imagined experts dropping by to insult me, others who actually have a clue, Dawkins, or anyone else as they pontificate on a subject no one but themselves seems to recognize their expertise in. Mijo does not even understand the papers he quotes and uses as sources. I do. And I understand why he thinks they sort of lend credence to his "evolution is random" claim... but they don't. He's full of crap... but I promise to let others discover this little tidbit for themselves.

 

[articulett]

Yes, if you use the word efficiency instead of complexity, I agree completely. It is adaptation to the environment that drives the process, in conjuction with the available genetic material.

Because all matter is affected by entropy-- you need to have an energy source and a code to "organize" matter-- "directions" for assembling the atoms into things-- cells, animals, languages, ecosystems, computers... It's the directions that evolve-- the information codes-- and these codes produce "organized matter" by getting themselves replicated based on how what they code for works in the environment it finds itself in.

I'm sure efficiency is problematic too... but it probably is better than complexity.

 

[articulett]

Yes, if you use the word efficiency instead of complexity, I agree completely. It is adaptation to the environment that drives the process, in conjuction with the available genetic material.

Because all matter is affected by entropy-- you need to have an energy source and a code to "organize" matter-- "directions" for assembling the atoms into things-- cells, animals, languages, ecosystems, computers... It's the directions that evolve-- the information codes-- and these codes produce "organized matter" by getting themselves replicated based on how what they code for works in the environment it finds itself in.

I'm sure efficiency is problematic too... but it probably is better than complexity.

I don't think I'd say that adaptation drives the process. I'd probably say that it's the adaptations that get copied that drive the process--the adaptations selected by the environment. Evolutionary changes happen on the level of the information-- we see the results in the "product" the information codes for... which then interacts with the environment to determine which bits of that information will live into the future via replication (often long after it's replicator dies.) (Information in code is not subject to entropy in the same way as the product it codes for.)

Aack... but this is well beyond the scope of this thread. I just wanted to clarify the thinking behind my complexity claim since it wasn't clear.

(Gee, I wonder if the person who attacked me regarding this will apologize AND--get a clue-- nah... too certain of their rightness.)

ETA (In any case, it was Mijo's interjection that "evolution is random" that derailed this thread in this manner. Why he sought to interject that is beyond me... but I leave the reader to their own conclusions.)

 

[FireGarden]

My argument was that if you could perfectly describe the series of events that go into a mutation (the photons hitting the DNA, the molecular fluctuations that determine if a DNA sequence is translated properly...) it may be possible to indeed remove the random element from that. Same with the dice roll. If you could perfectly describe the initial conditions involved in the roll (molecular gas of air motions, the frictional factors of the table, the angle, velocity and trajectory of the dice upon throughing) is should be possible to predict each dice roll.

I appreciate that. But my point was that, while many processes have aspects which are treated as random variables, the word "random" is reserved for only some of them.

Have you ever heard someone describe crystalisation as random? Why not? There are many ways for imperfections to arise in the process. Nobody can predict where the imperfections will be.

This was qayak's point. Random is what we call a chaotic process that we can't predict yet. We may know the set of outcomes, but not enough of the details of the event itself.

Again, we don't know the exact outcome of crystallisation. There is randomness in it. But the process brings along so much order that it seems silly to focus on the random parts.

Anyway, I'm not a die hard.
I can accept that some people want to call a thing random if there is less than 100% accurate prediction of the outcome. I just wonder what they would consider to be non-random.