Intelligent design's predictions

[fishkr]

fishkr-

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

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.

Evolution Haiku:


The failure of generations speaks,

birch leaves compiled under snow

until spring

 

[articulett]

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

My nature abhors vacuuming.

Of course that is neither here nor there.

(in fact, it may be "quintessentially random"--tee-hee)

 

[mijopaalmc]

fishkr and articulett-

How would you respond to evolutionary biologist Graham Bell?

Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution

In every generation better-adapted individuals will bee more likely to survive and reproduce. This is only a tendency, however, not a deterministic rule. 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. The variation of characters among individuals ensures that the sample that reproduces is a biased sample of the population as a whole, but its composition cannot be precisely specified in advance. But there is nobody responsible for selecting snail at the bottom of hedgerow, and no individuals, no matter how well-endowed has any guarantee of success, only a greater or lesser chance. Richard Lewontin once prefaced a lecture on this topic with a quote from Ecclesiastes: the race is not alway to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but time and chance happen to both.

The nature of evolution as sampling implies that evolution is a stochastic process that is subject to sampling error. The composition of a population at any point in time will be determined by three factors. One is historical, the composition of the generation from which it descends. The second is selection, which tends to increase some kinds of individual and decrease others. The third is chance. The actual composition of the population will inevitably differ from what we expected based on descent and selection, because the life of each individual is a historically unique succession of events who eventual outcome is influenced by a multitude of factors. The next generation is formed in a stochastic, or probabilistic, fashion from the success and failure of many such lives. We may be able to predict its average properties with some assurance, but its composition will fluctuate to a greater or lesser extent in ways we cannot predict or account for.

 

[fishkr]

Why should we do all the work? Give us your interpretation in 27,000 polysylabic words or less, then we'll see.

Haiku Without a Fish :



A snake swims upstream

finless, footless, clueless

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why should we do all the work? Give us your interpretation in 27,000 polysylabic words or less, then we'll see.

And let's see, I already gave you the distilled argument in my first response to you:

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.

Could you actually respond to this in more than nineteen syllables?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

fishkr and articulett-

How would you respond to evolutionary biologist Graham Bell?

The composition of a population at any point in time will be determined by three factors. One is historical, the composition of the generation from which it descends. The second is selection, which tends to increase some kinds of individual and decrease others. The third is chance. The actual composition of the population will inevitably differ from what we expected based on descent and selection

If this is it in a nut shell, what is everyone arguing about?

 

[mijopaalmc]

If this is it in a nut shell, what is everyone arguing about?

The point is that the phenotype of the individual doesn't completely determine the number of offspring it produces, which is exactly what Bell goes on to explain:

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.

 

[Henners]

The point is that the phenotype of the individual doesn't completely determine the number of offspring it produces, which is exactly what Bell goes on to explain:

However, your contention: "If, as I maintain, two identical sets of initial conditions can yield two different final results, the process is random," is a different issue entirely, and you have not established that it can.

In chaotic systems, two immeasurably different systems can evolve differently through entirely deterministic (i.e., non-random) processes.

 

[mijopaalmc]

In chaotic systems, two immeasurably different systems can evolve differently through entirely deterministic (i.e., non-random) processes.

Except that with chaotic system, you actually start with different sets of initial conditions. If you were able to measure each initial condition with infinite accuracy and execute your calculations with infinite accuracy, you would end up with the same final conditions if you started with identical initial conditions.

 

[articulett]

If this is it in a nut shell, what is everyone arguing about?

Mijo thinks that it makes sense to call evolution random because you cannot tell beforehand which individuals will survive and which will perish... And after concluding that "selections is random" per that convoluted semantic twisting AND using the biologist general definition of mutations being random... he adds one random (the one he applied to selection) to the randomness of mutation and determines that evolution is random (times 2 ). Or stochastic-- which he uses as a synonym for "random" because "stochastic processes" are sometimes called "random processes"-- but it's not because they are "random" per se, it's because they contain random variables. But to mijo it's all RANDOM.

Nobody but creationists (and Mijo-- who swears he's not a creationist) thinks that it makes sense or is explanatory to call evolution random. But Mijo inserts this determination of his at every point... oddly enough, so does Behe... as seen in the multiple reviews of his book. In fact, Mijo derailed this thread to tell us all that evolution really is random per whatever vague and semantically twisted definition he's trying to shove down everyone's throat. This after hundreds of posts on a thread of his own making where he asked, but apparently didn't understand why evolutionists describe natural selection as nonrandom. Instead, he has determined that they are wrong... and he's smarter, better, and more explanatory-- though no-one but himself recognizes his expertise on the topic. And though he insists that all these other scientists are saying what he is saying-- they clearly aren't-- moreover... he totally ignores those current scientists and the tops in the field who most decidedly say-- Natural Selection is nonrandom.

No one's arguing. It's just that Mijo has to have the last word and the word is "Evolution is random". I think everyone else has realized that will always be his point and has given up trying to tell him why no biologist would ever describe it that way.

But Fishkr's beautiful Haiku coupled with having Mijo on ignore makes the whole experience worth it for me.

 

[Wowbagger]

Dang. I thought this discussion ended long ago.

You know, it really depends on the definition of random you use. There are valid definitions and invalid ones, when describing evolution.

An example of each:

Valid: Mutations are random as to whether they will be detrimental or beneficial, etc.

Invalid: Evolution is all just random chance.

I reiterate that using the word "random" is not strictly necessary when defining evolution. That's why I try to urge folks not to do so. I'm just trying to prevent further confusion, down the road.

But, I'm not going to argue against those who still use it, to some valid extent.

Mijo seems about half and half. He cites valid papers from folks who call it that. I just hope he sees that the "randomness" only models reality, and that reality is not really random, in itself.

Is this so hard to understand?!

 

[articulett]

Why should we do all the work? Give us your interpretation in 27,000 polysylabic words or less, then we'll see.

Haiku Without a Fish :



A snake swims upstream

finless, footless, clueless

I love this... it's my favorite Haiku ever...
even the title rocks.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo seems about half and half. He cites valid papers from folks who call it that. I just hope he sees that the "randomness" only models reality, and that reality is not really random, in itself.

Is this so hard to understand?!

It's not that hard to understand what you have said above within the framework you have set up. However, I dispute you fundamental premise that "reality is not really random, in itself". I don't think that that has been thoroughly demonstrated.

 

[Wowbagger]

However, I dispute you fundamental premise that "reality is not really random, in itself". I don't think that that has been thoroughly demonstrated.

It's hard to demonstrate. Mostly because we don't have the capability to calculate reality to the same degree reality, itself, uses. (Does that make sense?) Again, it is like predicting the weather: We don't have the ability to calculate every aspect of the climate to the same degree the climate, itself, uses.

But, we know a few things:

1. Historically, anyone who claims their model is the last word on something is made a fool of. In science, the models keep getting more and more precise and accurate, with seemingly no limit; indicating reality is predictable to an arbitrary degree. If there was a fundamental randomness in nature (above the quantum level), we would have demonstrated that, already (in a similar way Heisenberg demonstrated it for the quantum level).

2. It is true that a certain amount of uncertainty in atomic and subatomic particles has been demonstrated (Heisenberg, and all that). But, we also know that those probabilistic levels of nature "smear out" and become surprisingly predictable at higher levels.

Example: Nature might select radioactive atoms to decay "at random", but the half-life of a given amount of radioactive material is very predictable.


The only hypothetical "out" I can think of, is that life forms are somehow more able to be manipulated by quantum uncertainty that non-living material. But, this has yet to be demonstrated. In fact, recent studies make this idea less plausible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know this is a lost cause but might I suggest mijo that you quit arguing about the name you assign to the process and just see where it is you all differ on the specifics of the process. It really seems to me to be an absurd semantics argument here rather than much else.

If one of 2 outcomes is possible, is that random? If one of five outcomes, is that random? It all depends on how you look at it. But the number of outcomes or the odds of each outcome, or how they come about doesn't change.

There are selection pressures which influence the genetic survivors working along with random forces. You may not be able to predict the surviving characteristics of the individual but you can predict the surviving characteristics of the group. My child is not going to look like a starfish. He may get a random assortment of genes from me and his father, but some of those genes are going to have a dominant expression. That changes the odds from entirely random to only partially random.

 

[articulett]

No, he won't...

Because he's to busy going to other threads telling everyone that evolution really is random.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97866&page=4

Any thread where anybody says evolution isn't random... Mijo must pop in to declare that it is.

Why would he care about your input and clarifications when he has already declared himself an expert on evolution in regards to randomness?

 

[fishkr]

And he doesn't understand Chaos theory. Has it backwards.

 

[fishkr]

I love this... it's my favorite Haiku ever...
even the title rocks.

Undeserved praise, but vanity compells me to enjoy it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mijo, I found this looking for something else. It addresses/argues against your position very directly. It's a lecture in microbiology at a pretty high level, but I think you'll find enough of it understandable to be worth your time.

http://www-dna2006.cea.fr/lectures/Austin1.pdf

 

[quixotecoyote]

I also found an interesting article that explicitly deals with this argument:
Chance and Macroevolution
Roberta L. Millstein
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 67, No. 4. (Dec., 2000), pp. 603-624.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248(200012)67:4<603:CAM>2.0.CO;2-6

Similarly, proponents of stochasitc models do not deny Laplacean determinisn. Rather, both deterministis and stochastic macroevolutionary explanations are consistent with either Laplacean determinisn or indeterminisn. Thus, the stochasticity of the models does not depend on the stochasticity of the underlying phenomena; he underlying phenomena could be ontologically random or Laplacean deterministic.

...

Although elements of this model have been criticized since it was first proposed, and alternative models have been proffered the MBL [Stochastic Model for Macroevolution] continues to be cited in textbooks and recent papers.

...


Consider the canonical example of indiscriminate sampling,
the blindfolded sampling of colored balls from an urn. Suppose the balls
are identical except for the fact that some are red and some are green. One
person, fully blindfolded, picks balls out of the urn, while another person
watches. ... [he] would acknowledge that the picking of the balls involved "chance as indiscriminate
sampling," where the sampling occurs with respect to a given
property, although it does not involve "chance as ignorance."

...

3.2. Eble's Chances in Stochastic Macroevolutionary Models. As we saw
above, stochastic models are characterized by explanations that are untimebounded
and untaxonbounded. These characteristics imply that differences
between taxa are causally irrelevant to differences in rates of branching
and extinction within the taxa (this is the untaxonbounded element)
and that different time periods are causally irrelevant to differences in rates
of branching and extinction (this is the untimebounded element). In other
words, stochastic models involve "chance as indiscriminate samplingusampling
that is indiscriminate with respect to differences in time intervals
and taxa.