• 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

cyborg said:
"Quintessentially random" is a meaningless statement.
Click to expand...

It sure is! In fact it's sort of redundant if you've defined everything as either "random" or not.

That's like a light switch being quintessentially "on".

Funny.

Pedants are funny.
 
cyborg said:
It is, therefore, a meaningless statement since the word "quintessentially" adds no meaning.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should actually look up what "quintessential" actually means before you insist that calling something "quintessentially random" adds no meaning. Random variable are the most typical example of randomness as defined by a set of rules and are therefore quintessentially random.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
Do you actually have any evidence for this statement beside "the results are orderly"?
Click to expand...

The process is orderly, and therefore not random.

Systems with rules are not necessarily non-random.
Click to expand...

If a process is governed by rules it is necessarily non-random. Evolution is governed by rules just as a game of Bridge is, it just goes on longer and is more likely to cost you your life.

Random variables are themselves rules ...
Click to expand...

Variables are not rules, they are variables.

... yet they are also quintessentially random.
Click to expand...

It'll take more than that to weird me out, I've dealt with lawyers and MBA's in my time.
 
cyborg said:
Give me an example of a non-quintessential randomness.
Click to expand...

And you have missed the point yet again: "quintessential" describes a particularly common example. For example, uniform, normal, and chi-squared random occur often in many applications of probability theory and statistics and therefore could be considered quintessential random variables. A Cauchy random, on the other hand, would not necessarily be considered quintessential because it is rarely used as an example of a random variable due to the fact is does not have a mean, a variance, or any other central moments. That said "quintessential" is not a real mathematical classification for random variable; it just described a particular common well known example.
 
That said "quintessential" is not a real mathematical classification for random variable; it just described a particular common well known example.
Click to expand...

Then I respectively submit that saying something is "quintessentially" random provides no meaning.
 
cyborg said:
Then I respectively submit that saying something is "quintessentially" random provides no meaning.
Click to expand...

And I submit that you should learn what "quintessential" means before you say something like that. Random variables are a common example of how randomness is described; there are also physical examples such as dice rolls or coin flips, some description are just more common than other and therefore trigger a cognitive association with randomness.
 
Random variables are a common example of how randomness is described; there are also physical examples such as dice rolls or coin flips, some description are just more common than other and therefore trigger a cognitive association with randomness.
Click to expand...

So "quintessential" randomness means "randomness - whatever".
 
mijopaalmc said:
Actually, that's where you're wrong. Each phenotype confers a probability of survival upon its possessor and that makes natural selection random by definition. .
Click to expand...

This is backwards. Natural Selection is the filter that strains phenotypic expression over time by favoring expressions that are more adaptive/fit. Phenotypes confer nothing but themselves. Selection is the engine of evolution. (Two competing metaphors in one para. sorry)

Thus Natural Selection is the opposite of random. There are elements WITHIN the process that are random, or undirected, such as random genetic mutation, but this doesn't make the process as a whole "random". A longer necked giraffe gets a few more leaves than his cousin, and thereby has more energy to pass on his genetic material, either by runnning faster or . . . whatever it is that giraffes do to get along. The neck length phenotype may have been a random mutation, but the process of survival and the effects of genetic success on species adaptation is highly directed, stochastic, non-deterministic.

I suppose if lions hunted by blindly swatting the air for giraffes then you could consider the process random . . .

When you go to Las Vegas and play roulette, the outcome of the the roulette-part of the process can be considered as a probability distribution. I think this is how you are using the word "random". The roulette can be thought of as "random mutation". If you happen to win, (fat chance) the outcome of the weekend will be different than if you lose. But what happens to you in Vegas, the booze, the hookers, the police, and how many criminals you may choose to enrich with your life savings, or if you survive long enough to pass your genetic material on to your spouse, (or they may not want to have anything more to do with you, once again, depending on the outcome at the Wheel), that's Darwin at work.:)
 
mijopaalmc said:
Do you actually have any evidence for this statement beside "the results are orderly"?

When the output is more ordered (has more information ) than the input. You know, something like a species existing and evolving over time.
Click to expand...
Systems with rules are not necessarily non-random. Random variables are themselves rules, yet they are also quintessentially random.[/QUOTE]

Quit dawdling over terms like a sissy. Exlpain what is "random" about being eaten alive because you were slower than your fellow giraffe and therefore Selected by the lion? What does the word Selection imply? (Hint: it is something close to the opposite of random)

M
 
Fishkr--

Your explanations are fantastic... but Mijo must do whatever he can so he, Like Behe, can conclude that "scientists think that life arose randomly"-- that means he must somehow define natural selection as "random". No matter what anyone says or describes-- he will always loop back to the idea that "evolution is a random process". It's weird, misleading, meaningless, and fails to explain the power of natural selection. Consequently, it's the favorite description of evolution for creationists. If people don't understand natural selection, a designer seems more likely.

Now why Mijo is beholden to that particularly term despite multiple fabulous explanations such as your as many experts saying the same-- even peer reviewed articles--? Why did he pop into this thread to inject his repeated conclusion that somehow it makes sense to call evolution "random"? Why do you suppose he imagines himself an expert although no actual expert in Biology would ever define evolution as vaguely as he does and all would be very generous in describing exactly how natural selection achieves the results it does--non-randomly? Why would he do so after pages of a thread he started asking about how evolution was nonrandom-- of which he did not absorb a single answer and ended up concluding that "evolution is random"?

I'm warning you so you will be aware that you are in one of those weird Twlight Zone loops where you think you are clarifying understanding, and he thinks he's winning a game in his head. To win points he must get the last word... and the last word must be that it makes sense to call evolution a "random process". It isn't you. The incompetents just are never aware that they are the incompetent ones. I don't know where he gets his imagined expertise since I don't think anyone here considers him an expert on anything. You are correct. He thinks he already knows all there is to know on the subject so he can't learn anything else.

It's fascinating, because Behe does the exact same thing. I love the Dover transcripts... it's such a weird thing to watch... they are so good at using words to evade points and not say anything at all while inferring all sorts of unsavory things about evolution and those who can explain how the appearance of design comes from the process itself-- no "intelligent designer" needed.
 
articulett said:
Fishkr--

I'm warning you so you will be aware that you are in one of those weird Twlight Zone loops where you think you are clarifying understanding, and he thinks he's winning a game in his head. It's fascinating, because Behe does the exact same thing.
Click to expand...


Thank you, and I know you're correct in this. It's just that my nature abhors a vacuum.:)
 
fishkr-

You seem to have missed the crux of the argument where an organisms phenotype does not fully determine whether it produces offspring.

As far as I understand the mathematical modeling of evolution, the environment is an extremely complex function that maps the initial conditions (i.e., the organism's phenotype) to final results (i.e., the production of reproductively viable offspring). If, as I maintain, two identical sets of initial conditions can yield two different final results, the process is random. The problem with the continuing discussion is that people keep ignoring the fact that I have defined "random" in this way (which happens to be equivalent to "described by probability"). My argument could be very easily defeated if someone were to present evidence that individuals of certain phenotypes in a given population always produce reproductively viable offspring while individuals of all the other phenotypes in that same population never produce reproductively viable offspring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom