Intelligent design's predictions

[joobz]

Have you ever heard someone describe crystalisation as random? Why not?

You assume I haven't???

Acutally, I have heard crystalization as a random event. It requires the presence of seed sites which may or may not be present and can form randomly as a function of random fluctuations. Indeed, much of the system's molecular configuration will determine which crystalline structure will form (if the molecule in question has crystalline polymorphs).


I always like diffusion as a description/analogy to evolution. Each molecule moves independantly and could care less about the system as a whole. It is the random fluctuations of these molecules which results in the sum effect of high concentration moving to lower concentration. Indeed, we can describe perfectly the expected concentration vs. time profile for any set of initial conditions. Yet, there is a stochastic process that underies the entire system. Being predictable doesn't prevent it from having a random component. Much in the same way as with evolution.

 

[JoeEllison]

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

It sure can be used that way... so can "information", when used in the way people like Behe present them.

When you see someone use "complexity", "information", AND "random" in a way that matches the nonsense coming out of the Discovery Institute, you begin to get a little suspicious.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Although since they were being used by people on opposite sides on an issue, your head should have exploded at least a little.

 

[JoeEllison]

Although since they were being used by people on opposite sides on an issue, your head should have exploded at least a little.

Not really... although it came close when I tried to have a conversation with a ID supporter about complexity being a sign of design, except when it wasn't.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

But of course natural selection is stochastic. Everything is stochastic! Computing on a computer is stochastic, since the occasional random error occurs.

Notice how you are qualifying your terse statement that "evolution is a stochastic process." That's all I was asking for.

~~ Paul

 

[FireGarden]

You assume I haven't???

Acutally, I have heard crystalization as a random event. It requires the presence of seed sites which may or may not be present and can form randomly as a function of random fluctuations. Indeed, much of the system's molecular configuration will determine which crystalline structure will form (if the molecule in question has crystalline polymorphs).

OK,
I guess that settles it.

In that context, I have no trouble calling evolution random. It's just not the context I first had in mind.

 

[six7s]

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

Thank you FireGarden,

A while ago, I read something by articulett that made perfect sense re why evolution is non-random and how the use of such terminology was misleading... but...

Over the last few days, I have been - thanks to ad-nauseum input from (random) apologists - become increasingly befuddled by all their waffle and apparently intentional use of inappropriate jargon from other fields, to the point where they had succeeded in obfuscating the issue so much that I couldn't remember exactly why I knew they were lying

For me, your seive analogy has sorted the complicated woo of IDiocy from the simple truth of science

Thank you

 

[articulett]

Thank you FireGarden,

A while ago, I read something by articulett that made perfect sense re why evolution is non-random and how the use of such terminology was misleading... but...

Over the last few days, I have been - thanks to ad-nauseum input from (random) apologists - become increasingly befuddled by all their waffle and apparently intentional use of inappropriate jargon from other fields, to the point where they had succeeded in obfuscating the issue so much that I couldn't remember exactly why I knew they were lying

For me, your seive analogy has sorted the complicated woo of IDiocy from the simple truth of science

Thank you

Hey... wait a second... I used the sieve analogy way back on Mijo's thread asking how evolution is not random... I want some credit! Ah, nevermind, Firegarden probably said it better (but I bet it still won't work for those sure they know everything already.)

I think evolution is like math or computing... if you get a good base for understanding, then the details can be built and corrected on top of that base and the new information can be assimilated. And for me, what we are discovering is some of the coolest stuff humans have ever figured out... and we can share this useful and utterly true and amazing information with each other--here on this forum-- with people all over the world-- and links. Those who think they understand the process and who really don't-- just make the whole thing sound impossible for anyone to understand. But to me it's like reading... you plant a little understanding while they're young and curious and you fill in the details as they go and as we uncover them. I hate when the blowhards make the curious feel like the lack of understanding is due to lack of knowledge. The best science teachers like Sagan, Feynman, Dawkins, etc. are able to convey understanding without the pedantry. Randi does that too. He shows people that even they can be fooled... he lets them "teach themselves".

I sometimes feel like the obfuscators will make evolution sound so complex or boring that people avoid learning one of the very coolest things humans can know. We figured out how we got here... why it appears designed... why we have it sort of backwards... why our perspective leads to misperceptions... Darwin was right-- and molecular genetics affirms it in stunning detail. And Darwins theory has applications out side of biology as many scientists are now realizing. (Astrophysicis, Neil Tyson Degrasse gave an excellent speech on the topic at last years Beyond Belief conference--available for download. The new Beyond Belief should be out soon.)

Isn't this story of our origins way more breathtaking than anything offered by any obfuscator or any religion? Once you have a sieving process-- a selector-- then you have a way of amassing the benefits that accrue in the pool of randomness. We are a result of that process!

And to get a little preachy-- We process information (replicate it, refine it, hone it, store it, recombine it, send it to the future, assimilate it, etc.) that will live on after we die just as we evolved to do. Not just in our genes--but in our memes... in our understanding and furthering of scientific knowledge... in our teaching of others... and finding new ways to make current information do new things. When life forms do what they are programmed to do--they cannot help but be replicators of information... AND "environmental inputs" refining and honing other evolving information systems in their environment. Information evolves as it passes through replicators. We are the product of natural selection but so is everything we build-- our languages, our cities, our technology. There is no top- down tornado/747 assembly process. It's ALL bottom up. That is the only way to get organization of matter... the opposite of entropy... the only way to get what we perceive of as complexity or design. All the matter that makes up your computer existed on this earth a thousand years ago. What was missing? Information selected and assimilated over time.

THAT is the power of natural selection.

That is why Dawkins et. al. would be up in arms for someone to toss this understanding under the blanket of "random" to make it all sound like it was just a tornado in a junkyard.

And that is what creationists are afraid of. Because ultimately that means god was built from the bottom up too-- from the minds of men.

 

[six7s]

Hey... wait a second... I used the sieve analogy way back on Mijo's thread asking how evolution is not random... I want some credit! Ah, nevermind, Firegarden probably said it better (but I bet it still won't work for those sure they know everything already.)

Internet Truism: No-one has read all of the backlog



articulett, you know you are credited - by me and probably many, many others - as being a shining light of sane, credible, consistent and - most importantly - coherent sense in an otherwise murky, sordid web of deceptive and nonsensical woo

 

[mijopaalmc]

Hey... wait a second... I used the sieve analogy way back on Mijo's thread asking how evolution is not random... I want some credit!

Hey, wait a minute, the sieve analogy doesn't actually works because it is an example of a deterministic filter. A sieve only lets particles below a certain size through. Therefore, you can be certain that a particle will pass through or remain in the sieve, given a particle's size and the size of the mesh in the sieve.

On the other hand, every single source that you have cited describing that process of natural selection in general says that adaptation increases an individual's probability of survival, meaning that each individual can either survive or perish and that, with respect to their individual phenotypes, a greater number of the better adapted individuals survive. However, the possession of a particular phenotype, even if it is the best adapted phenotype, does not guarantee survival.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hey, wait a minute, the sieve analogy doesn't actually works because it is an example of a deterministic filter. A sieve only lets particles below a certain size through. Therefore, you can be certain that a particle will pass through or remain in the sieve, given a particle's size and the size of the mesh in the sieve.

Yes, the sieve analogy works just fine. Any individual particle may be hung up on the side or be blocked by a clump of larger particles that won't let it through, etc.

The sieve analogy is quite good, actually. I think you need to spend more time thinking about it.

 

[cyborg]

Non-deterministic filters don't filter mijo.

 

[articulett]

Internet Truism: No-one has read all of the backlog



articulett, you know you are credited - by me and probably many, many others - as being a shining light of sane, credible, consistent and - most importantly - coherent sense in an otherwise murky, sordid web of deceptive and nonsensical woo

I am a total sucker for the flattery-- (but you are ruining my carefully crafted reputation as the JREF Evolution Harpie Strident Evil Atheist Demon from Hell that I've worked so hard to achieve. )

 

[joobz]

Allow me to explain why I think you are incorrect by agumenting your statement.

note all edits in bold are mine

On the other hand, every single source that you have cited describing that process of natural selection in general says that adaptation increases an individual's probability of survival, meaning that each individual can either survive (be retained by the filter) or perish (fall through the filter) and that, with respect to their individual phenotypes (Size of the particle), a greater number of the better adapted individuals survive (particles be fruitful and multiply, only the big will be retained). However, the possession of a particular phenotype, even if it is the best adapted phenotype, does not guarantee survival.(The filter is made of rubber and pore sizes may vary from microlocation to microlocation)
[/

Also, remember that other things (unexpected) could occur and improve survival. In the particle example, If the particle phenotype changed to cohesive, small particles can be retained by sticking together into a larger aggregate.

So, indeed, the seive analogy is quite good and holds true. The random part comes in the form of
1.) random distribution of seive sizes
2.) mechanical motion which dictates where particles are/arenot
3.) mutations in particle offspring. (Remember that evolution requires replication)

 

[six7s]

Hey... wait a second... I used the sieve analogy way back on Mijo's thread asking how evolution is not random... I want some credit!

Hey, wait a minute, the sieve analogy doesn't actually works because it is an example of a deterministic filter

Hey... wait a millenia... and the mijobot might learn that its hard-coded to reject anything that threatens to undermine IDiotic apologistic woo

The seive analogy DOES work... for me...

Please, anyone (other than wooists - and that specifically excludes you, mijo) do explain any significant errors in my interpretation:

The size of the holes is 'determined' by the immediate environment, with the offspring of small, adept species/organisms slipping through whilst big, clumsy species/organisms get trapped (e.g. as prey or by disease or by famine etc) in sufficiently large numbers that their reproduction rates drop exponentially and they die out - i.e. 'their dna-type information is not passed on' whilst 'fitter' species/organisms fill the otherwise empty niche
​

I'm not sure about the distiction between species and organisms... is it significant?

 

[Wowbagger]

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...

I don't remember mijo saying the Behe was right about anything. Can someone point to where he said anything like that?
I do remember plenty of cases where Tai did that. But, not mijo for some reason.

It seems to me that mijo's questions regarding randomness are rooted in a different source than Behe. For example: Behe would be prone to bring up the "747" argument as valid. As near as I can tell, mijo would not.

I took some time to read a few posts in the "Fossil and Evolution" thread, to see if I can spot any creationist behavior from mijo, there. Although I did not read every single thing he placed in there, I conclude that he is expressing the sort of standard concern one might have, if their knowledge of biology was very basic. In other words, it is a legitimate question, not necessarily one that only a creationist would bring up.

Here is a sample, from early in the thread:

The basic conceptual problem I have with evolution and the fossil record can probably be subsumed under the bigger question of how we perceive reality to be continuous even though we know that we receive information from our senses in discrete increments.

My point with the day-scaling analogy is that intermediate forms don't seem to appear close enough together even trick our senses into believing that the change is continuous (much as projecting film at ~48 frames a second tricks us into believing the motion on a movie screen is continuous). In fact for us to believe that the day-long movie of evolution is one of continuous change intermediate forms would have to occur every 1085 years (i.e., 1/48th of a second in the day-scaled world) and be morphologically close enough to one another to make the "morph" seem smooth.

I am not saying this as a refutation of evolution as I believe that there are other strong independent pieces of evidence that demonstrate evolution. Rather, I am simply asking whether the evidence we claim is provided by fossils is really as strong as we would like to think it is.

A lot of people, including Dr. A and others, gave some very helpful answers to this issue. But, perhaps in the profusion of confusion that followed, things got lost and murky.

Maybe my own responses would help:

First Paragraph: Remember: The goal of science is not necessarily to find ultimate truth, but to build provisional models. Our models tend to use discrete values, because we humans can only perceive the world in discrete values. But, it would be an arrogant fallacy to assume that reality works the way humans perceive. We have measured various aspects of the Universe to such a fine degree, that the safest bet is to assume that pretty much everything in nature is continuous.
Historically, those who have assumed there must be discrete behavior in nature, have found themselves at a severe disadvantage, whenever someone finds gray-areas, they did not take into consideration. There are always new gray areas yet to be discovered!

Second Paragraph: The fossil record is not as complete as we would like it to be. That is the biggest reason for its jumping. The conditions to preserve parts of the life form have to be right.
However, evolution tends to "progress" in a saw-blade like manner: There are small ups and downs, but still an overall trend can be seen in the bigger picture. And, sometimes (though rarely) there are almost-saltation-like, large jumps in the changes in a species, anyway.

Third Paragraph: Okay, nice to see you are NOT refuting evolution, you simply want answers to something that puzzles you.
On one hand, the fossil record, alone, is not enough to demonstrate evolution is a fact. Evolution is considered a fact because of a convergence of evidence that includes, but is not limited to, the fossil record.
On the other hand, the ordering of morphology in the fossil record could not be explained better, by any other theory. You would NOT predict such an "order" from ID, (although you could post-dict and call it "God's R&D Lab" or something). However, you would predict such an order from evolution.

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.

This could be a valid point. Mijo might have a problem accepting our arguments. Though, I still doubt he is doing so with Creationist intentions. But, let's see if he is starting to catch on...

Mijo, have you learned anything from this thread yet?

 

[Wowbagger]

articulett, you know you are credited - by me and probably many, many others - as being a shining light of sane, credible, consistent and - most importantly - coherent sense in an otherwise murky, sordid web of deceptive and nonsensical woo

I second the motion!
(despite the recent bout of "accusation fingers")

 

[qayak]

I second the motion!
(despite the recent bout of "accusation fingers")

I third it!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo, have you learned anything from this thread yet?

I am not going to answer your question directly, because I feel that the people who have posted most prolifically in this thread in opposition to me haven't significantly changed their arguments since they first put them forward months ago.

However, the constant discussion of randomness (or lack thereof) has at least led me to consider that I may need to justify the assumptions about initial that I make and how that effects my designation of evolution by natural selection as random. I will elaborate on this further later.

 

[Wowbagger]

However, the possession of a particular phenotype, even if it is the best adapted phenotype, does not guarantee survival.

This is true. But, I wanted to gently remind you that the other factors that determine survival are not random. They all have causes. But, those causes are unpredictable, like the weather.

(It is usually easier, and still instructive, for some to call it "random", anyway. But, don't let such simplifications fool you.)

I am not going to answer your question directly, because I feel that the people who have posted most prolifically in this thread in opposition to me haven't significantly changed their arguments since they first put them forward months ago.

If you are talking about the science, then why should they? What better arguments has anyone presented?
If you are talking about yourself, I would argue that you have not exactly been quick to pick up the knowledge given to you. That might be ticking people off. Though, I do think much of the reaction has been over the top. I still think the "creationist" accusation is inaccurate, for example.

However, the constant discussion of randomness (or lack thereof) has at least led me to consider that I may need to justify the assumptions about initial that I make and how that effects my designation of evolution by natural selection as random. I will elaborate on this further later.

I assume you meant "initial conditions"? Well, that's good. Take your time to think it over, and get back to us.