Natural selection

[cyborg]

Now, you're purposefully obfuscating.

After the amount of back and forth we've had on this I have failed to see any progress whatsoever.

 

[mijopaalmc]

After the amount of back and forth we've had on this I have failed to see any progress whatsoever.

Because, as usual, you seem to have an aversion to honest debate. Instead, you prefer to obfuscate, equivocate, relay on faulty analogies and in general lie about what you have said previously. Most thinking people would recognize that statement "randomness is acausal" as a statement that "random means acausal", just as as many people have taken the statement "randomness indicates a lack of bias" to mean that "random" means "unbiased".

 

[Taffer]

Because, as usual, you seem to have an aversion to honest debate. Instead, you prefer to obfuscate, equivocate, relay on faulty analogies and in general lie about what you have said previously. Most thinking people would recognize that statement "randomness is acausal" as a statement that "random means acausal", just as as many people have taken the statement "randomness indicates a lack of bias" to mean that "random" means "unbiased".

I think, mijopaalmc, his point is that "randomness is acausal" and "random means acausal" do not mean the same. I would agree. Draw a Venn diagram and see for yourself.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think, mijopaalmc, his point is that "randomness is acausal" and "random means acausal" do not mean the same. I would agree. Draw a Venn diagram and see for yourself.

How are essential or necessary properties not defining properties?

 

[Taffer]

How are essential or necessary properties not defining properties?

"There exists a situation of which acausality is a part."
"There exists a situation which is a synonym for acausality."

Those are not the same.

 

[mijopaalmc]

"There exists a situation of which acausality is a part."
"There exists a situation which is a synonym for acausality."

Those are not the same.

You seem to have missed the posts where cyborg has said that acausality is necessary to randomness:

Randomness is necessarialy acuasal.

Relevant in that anyone who insists it means acausal

It is a necessary property of randomness - otherwise it will not be random, it will be deterministic, with the cause being the determinant.

If, as cyborg claims, acuasality is necessary to randomness, then randomness cannot be without acausality; therefore, one must have acausality to have randomness, acuasality defines randomness, and random means acausal.

 

[Belz...]

Those are the mathematical definitions. What has been argued most frequently is that evolution is not random by other definitions of "random" when the question asked was how evolution was not random by the mathematical definition.

Mijo, so far in the last few threads I've seen you participate in, I've been very confused as to your definition of "random" and I've asked several times for an explanation. At each turn, it seems you have no precise definition and keep switching from one to the next.

Would you mind clarifying that ?

 

[Belz...]

I was merely asking you if you thought Newton's laws of motion which provide a mathematical description to our intuitive notions of motion on the mesoscale (i.e., not too big and not too small) were faithful the reality of motion on the mesoscale.

It's close enough, but not terribly precise. Good enough for most problem-solving. But the law is still not reality itself.

 

[Belz...]

You seem to have missed the posts where cyborg has said that acausality is necessary to randomness:

If, as cyborg claims, acuasality is necessary to randomness, then randomness cannot be without acausality; therefore, one must have acausality to have randomness, acuasality defines randomness, and random means acausal.

Way to not understand what Taffer said. If acausality is necessary to randomness, it does not follow that the two are the same.

 

[Wowbagger]

In order to avoid further drift from the OP's main topic, I have started a new thread here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109957

I suggest we all take this battle to that field, instead.