Intelligent design's predictions

[mijopaalmc]

The point is the dart board.

And you missed the point again: points and lines have zero probability of being hit when part of a higher dimensional space, but they still exist.

 

[cyborg]

And you missed the point again: points and lines have zero probability of being hit when part of a higher dimensional space, but they still exist.

I think you have missed the point.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think you have missed the point.

Only because you haven't stated it clearly.

Sets with zero probability exist, the empty set (or impossible event) being the most pervasive in probability theory. Sets for event that do not exist by definition do not exist.

 

[JanisChambers]

I hate to be simple but if Intelligent design is indeed the case then it cannot be called intelligent. Am I to take the presence of wisdom teeth and an appendix as signs we have an intelligent (or competent) designer. Please tell me how our bodies are indication that we were designed?

 

[cyborg]

Only because you haven't stated it clearly.

Well mijo you tell me: what is the consequence of a system where events with probability of zero occur?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Here are a few more articles to add to quixotecoyote's list:

<snip>

How many of those were calling evolution deterministic/non-random and how many were calling it indeterminate/random/stochastic?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well mijo you tell me: what is the consequence of a system where events with probability of zero occur?

It doesn't occur. However, you are still missing the point that it still exists. This distinction is especially important when discussing convergence of random variables because not all systems converge pointwise (i.e., over all sets). Rather, they converge almost surely (i.e., over all sets that do not have measure or probability zero).

 

[cyborg]

It doesn't occur. However, you are still missing the point that it still exists.

If I select an event it occurs. The choice is arbitrary. The occurrence is not.

 

[mijopaalmc]

How many of those were calling evolution deterministic/non-random and how many were calling it indeterminate/random/stochastic?

I haven't read them all. In fact, the only one of which I have read more than the abstract is not on that list. However, it is clear from reading the abstracts that there is lively (and shockingly mostly civil) debate about the place of randomness in the description in evolutionary biology and that the issue is far from settled. As you mentioned before, the existence of such a debate adds an extra layer of irony to articulett's sig when she claim that evolution being non-random is a cut-and-fry.

 

[Wowbagger]

What exactly is it about the fact that summing up any process as "random" or "non-random" gives precisely zero information about it that isn't getting through?

I do think this discussion is starting to get needlessly semantically confabulated.

I have stated my case as to why "random" is not a necessary word to use when describing evolution. Some people use that word, anyway, and it could still be deemed valid, depending on the definition.
I avoid it primarily because it causes confusion. A scientist might define random as "stochastic", but if a Creationist sees that word, they might assume it means something different: complete and utter random chance.

Although, it starts to get stupid when we fight over these silly things for pages on end, I want to make sure that these points are made clear, in the end.

Of all people, I thought you would be the one to recognize when articulett is equivocating. The fact is that "random" has many different definition, some of which are mutually exclusive:

And that is precisely the reason I avoid using the word. It means too many different things to too many different people.

For a similar reason, I avoid describing myself as a "skeptic".

Now, I am pretty sure that you are an intelligent person, so I don't need to go through and explain how each definition of "random" differs from the other ones. Needless to say there is a stark distinction between the "common" definitions of "random" which see "random" as being without design, pattern, plan, or purpose and the "mathematical" definitions (even the one that refers to "having equal probabilities") which see "random" as being related to probability.
(snip)

Right you are!

So, what were we fighting about, again?!

Oh, yeah! Your insistence that evolution is random, in some way. Right. Well, yeah, I guess it depends on the definition you choose. And, I hope you see my point, that that is exactly my point.

Selection is deterministic with respect to phenome.
Mutation is non-deterministic with respect to genome.

Anything else is arguing metaphysics.

Well, you could argue that, while mutation is generally non-deterministic with respect to the genome, it could well be deterministic with respect to the environment (or fitness landscape, whichever term you prefer).

Sufficiently large numbers are good enough to simulate infinity.

For our models, yes, it is good enough. But, we should never mistake our models for reality. Remember the old cliche: All models are inaccurate. Some models are merely more useful than others.

 

[cyborg]

I have stated my case as to why "random" is not a necessary word to use when describing evolution. Some people use that word, anyway, and it could still be deemed valid, depending on the definition.

That is my point: either term is valid depending on the definition.

Statement A: "Egg frying is a random process."

Justification: inherent randomness in the universe makes egg frying a stochastic process not guaranteed to result in a fried egg."

Statement B: "Egg frying is a non-random process."

Justification: frying an egg follows a certain procedure.

Statement A and statement B are both totally useless at telling us what egg-frying actually is.

What worth are these descriptions?

Well, you could argue that, while mutation is generally non-deterministic with respect to the genome, it could well be deterministic with respect to the environment (or fitness landscape, whichever term you prefer).

Ah, but the description I give is the most generic - if mutation has a determinant from somewhere else it doesn't matter: the point is that the mutation is not explicitly driven by some derivative of the genetic code. The process does not rely on this at all - when it occurs interesting things can happen though.

For our models, yes, it is good enough. But, we should never mistake our models for reality. Remember the old cliche: All models are inaccurate. Some models are merely more useful than others.

Useful lies. I have pointed this out many times. The point with "sufficiently large numbers are good for infinity" is that they are good enough for the illusion of infinity. Actual infinity is actual infinity but we can't deal with that in an experiential way.

 

[mijopaalmc]

That is my point: either term is valid depending on the definition.

Statement A: "Egg frying is a random process."

Justification: inherent randomness in the universe makes egg frying a stochastic process not guaranteed to result in a fried egg."

Statement B: "Egg frying is a non-random process."

Justification: frying an egg follows a certain procedure.

Statement A and statement B are both totally useless at telling us what egg-frying actually is.

What worth are these descriptions?

The above comment really demonstrates some inherent misunderstanding of what it means to be "random" at least in the way that I have been more than amply clear that I am using the word. If there is uncertanity about the final outcome, the system is random in so far as it is only describable in terms of probability. Yes, I understand that the randomness thus defined could be purely epistemic (i.e., the result of our lack of complete knowledge of the system and it initial conditions), but it seem that such a proposition is a fundamental assumption within the structure of the discussion rather than a conclusion from empirically observed data. In short, it seems that those who object to calling evolution by natural selection "random" do so either because they assume from the outset that evolution by natural selection isn't "truly" random or because they assume from the outset that nothing is "truly" random.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The above comment really demonstrates some inherent misunderstanding of what it means to be "random" at least in the way that I have been more than amply clear that I am using the word. If there is uncertanity about the final outcome, the system is random in so far as it is only describable in terms of probability. Yes, I understand that the randomness thus defined could be purely epistemic (i.e., the result of our lack of complete knowledge of the system and it initial conditions), but it seem that such a proposition is a fundamental assumption within the structure of the discussion rather than a conclusion from empirically observed data. In short, it seems that those who object to calling evolution by natural selection "random" do so either because they assume from the outset that evolution by natural selection isn't "truly" random or because they assume from the outset that nothing is "truly" random.

I object to calling evolution "random (full stop)" because it is confusing. It's precisely the same reason I object to calling computation random. Are you okay with calling computation random?

~~ Paul

 

[cyborg]

If there is uncertanity about the final outcome, the system is random in so far as it is only describable in terms of probability.

The future is only describable in terms of probability.

but it seem that such a proposition is a fundamental assumption within the structure of the discussion rather than a conclusion from empirically observed data.

The past is describable without probability.

In short, it seems that those who object to calling evolution by natural selection "random" do so either because they assume from the outset that evolution by natural selection isn't "truly" random or because they assume from the outset that nothing is "truly" random.

The present is neither.

 

[articulett]

See... His goal IS the same as Behe's-- he must describe evolution as random... even if it conveys no information about evolution. Cyborg's simple definition gives all the important information you need in regards to randomness. The article did as well. Nobody else seems to define "random" as uselessly as Mijo, and no biologist sums up evolution as "random"-- Mijo's loose definition of random is: "any process or thing in which any aspect can be described by a probability distribution"-- that is a very vague, misleading, and useless, definition. What can't be bended to fit that definition?

But he keeps saying it's accurate... it's the same as Behe's obsession with describing evolution as random from where I sit... and T'ai's too. They are attached to that word-- they cannot admit that evolution or parts of evolution are non-random in any way. Why? They cannot admit that it confuses more than clarifies to speak that way. They cannot convey HOW evolution brings about complexity and the appearance of design over time, because they do not actually understand natural selection.

Why are the obsessed with the "random" parts of evolution--as opposed to the part Darwin, Dawkins, and all biologists emphasize? I think it's because it's much easier to obfuscate understanding and dismiss scientific conclusions about evolution if you say "scientists think this all came about randomly". Biologists actually say, "no, this all came about via natural selection-- which is not random.... rather it preferentially selects from the pool of randomness achieving the appearance of design-- animals particularly well suited for their environment. The mutations didn't know to happen... but the lucky mutations that did happen were preferentially selected to go on and be a part of an evolving species.

Why would someone want to confuse that understanding? Unless perhaps they imagined themselves and expert on something no one else considered them an expert in? Why would someone ignore the most recent articles and peer reviewed topics regarding the best way to convey understanding? Unless their goal was not to convey understanding-- but to be "right" in their head.

The truth is the same for everyone. Why use confusing words to convey it and pretend that you are being technically correct and that everyone else is wrong or being philosophical and so forth? Why do that when there are no peer reviewed papers defining evolution as loosely as the "random crowd" is... and tons saying that evolution-- particularly natural selection are NOT random... and that it's confusing to speak about them as though they are. If you're talking about biology, why would you use the word random as used by biologists. I quotes the Berkeely evolution site and other sources where it was defined. Mijo, etc. has never quoted a source where anyone uses "random" as vaguely as he does. It just doesn't convey any information (as Cyborg as repeatedly noted). Randomness must be in relationship to something. Why doesn't Mijo understand the fried egg example or the careful coddling of wowbagger? Instead... he's like Kleinman... while everlastingly insisting that he has no agenda... he still shows a need to pop into threads and argue that "evolution is random" whether anyone else (except T'ai) finds that verbiage meaningful or not. How is his obsession different than Behe's obsession with the term?

 

[articulett]

The future is only describable in terms of probability.



The past is describable without probability.



The present is neither.

Exactly... he speaks of mutations from a present point of view... and then he leaps into the past before natural selection so as to describe the outcome with probabilities...

He switches tenses in order to define evolution as random. We say, the mutation aspect was random... that which was selected from that randomness is not.

He says that the mutation was random and then jumps into the past and says, that because we don't know which will live and reproduce-- natural selection is random too. As though you are talking about the same kinds of "randomness" from the same point of view. It's so muddled. And he does it just so he can define evolution, in it's entirety, as random. In his head, if natural selection can be called random-- then that makes evolution a random process. He uses unpredictable aspects of the environment as a means of twisting his explanation about natural selection into the "it's random too" category... along with the switching of tenses and meaning mid definition. And it's unfixable. His brain must conclude that it somehow makes sense to sum up evolution as random. Just like Behe.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Exactly... he speaks of mutations from a present point of view... and then he leaps into the past before natural selection so as to describe the outcome with probabilities...

He switches tenses in order to define evolution as random. We say, the mutation aspect was random... that which was selected from that randomness is not.

He says that the mutation was random and then jumps into the past and says, that because we don't know which will live and reproduce-- natural selection is random too. As though you are talking about the same kinds of "randomness" from the same point of view. It's so muddled. And he does it just so he can define evolution, in it's entirety, as random. In his head, if natural selection can be called random-- then that makes evolution a random process. He uses unpredictable aspects of the environment as a means of twisting his explanation about natural selection into the "it's random too" category... along with the switching of tenses and meaning mid definition. And it's unfixable. His brain must conclude that it somehow makes sense to sum up evolution as random. Just like Behe.

This post and the one preceding just dhow how little articulett and cyborg (yes, I know cyborg didn't write either one of the posts I mentioned) understand what I am saying and how much they try and succeed to misunderstand my position. Even if mutation was compeltely determinstic, natural selection would still be random, because the variables that can be known with complete certainty do not fully determine either survival and reproduction or the number of viable offspring each individual whi reproduces produces.

 

[Wowbagger]

You know what, folks, as long as we all agree that the "747 Argument"*, and its ilk, are not a valid criticisms of science, I think it is best if we let this whole "random" argument end, already!!
Yeeesh!


(* You know, the one where a hurricane hits a junk yard, and just happens to twirl the junk around in such a way, that they happen to form a perfectly flyable 747 jet, as if Evolution is really as "random" as that.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

You know what, folks, as long as we all agree that the "747 Argument"*, and its ilk, are not a valid criticisms of science, I think it is best if we let this whole "random" argument end, already!!
Yeeesh!


(* You know, the one where a hurricane hits a junk yard, and just happens to twirl the junk around in such a way, that they happen to form a perfectly flyable 747 jet, as if Evolution is really as "random" as that.)

But the ptroblem seems to be that those who prefer to call evolution by natural selection "non-random" don't see that calling evolution by natural slection "random" doesn't imply the "747 in the junkyard" comparison, but they seem to have about the same understadning of probability theory (especially the laws of large numbers and limi theorems) as creationists do.

 

[six7s]

You know what, folks, as long as we all agree that the "747 Argument"*, and its ilk, are not a valid criticisms of science, I think it is best if we let this whole "random" argument end, already!!
Yeeesh!


(* You know, the one where a hurricane hits a junk yard, and just happens to twirl the junk around in such a way, that they happen to form a perfectly flyable 747 jet, as if Evolution is really as "random" as that.)

But the ptroblem seems to be that those who prefer to call evolution by natural selection "non-random" don't see that calling evolution by natural slection "random" doesn't imply the "747 in the junkyard" comparison

This is only a problem for you mijo, presumably because you stubbornly refuse to consider, let alone admit, that you don't know what you are talking about

...they seem to have about the same understadning of probability theory (especially the laws of large numbers and limi theorems) as creationists do.

It may seem like that to you

To me, I think you should either brush up on stats and English* or simply desist from posting on any threads where the terms probablity, random, and/or evolution occur

-----------

ETA: * This is in reference to your use of the word 'imply' (not your spelling)