What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[cyborg]

You implicitly asserted that evaluating the odds is separate from playing the game; it is not.

Nope. Thanks for missing the point though. Seems like there are a lot of people very adept at doing that here.

It better be in any game of poker you'll find me playing. People have gotten shot when it wasn't, you following me here?

Clearly you are not following me otherwise you would not be saying such stupid things.

ONCE THE CARDS HAVE BEEN RANDOMISED WHAT EVERYONE WILL GET IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED. YOU MAY ASSESS WHAT THE PLAYERS HAVE STATISTICALLY BUT THEIR CARDS ARE ALREADY SET! IT IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF CHANCE!

If you don't get that then why not try playing a hand face-up and see how random the cards in the other player's hands are once they are dealt.

 

[cyborg]

The fundamental flaw in this analogy is that the rarer hand always wins over the more common hand in poker.

Have you even played poker? Heard about bluffing per chance?

Oh and as articulett pointed out you should go look back at my actual post. Since people aren't actually reading a goddamn thing I'm saying with any sort of care though it does not surprise me that you missed the point that in a Texas Hold 'Em game you only have two hole cards and as such you can't be sure whether or not you have a winning hand before all the community cards are dealt (in most cases). It's what makes it a far more interesting game than draw Poker.

 

[jimbob]

Weather is chaotic, and it seems likely because of that it can be affected by truely random quantum effects. What the weather does affects which animals survive.

The larger the populations, the easier it is to predict, as climate becmoes more important for the whole population than weather. the interaction between these is best described by a probabilistic treatment.

The "weaker" organisms that are less fit are quickly deselected, but so are most others.

Consider the numbers.

A single codling has a mutation that wwould improve its chances of survival one hundredfold, which would be amazing, maybe it is unatractive to predators.

This codling still only has about 0.01% chance of reproducing.

If it did survive, and its brood carried this trait, then maybe 200 would reproduce instead of 2.

You are now in the realm where this advantage is likely to be fixed in the population.

Or the bacterial evolution experiment articulett reported on earlier.

With a constant selection pressure for better reproduction at elevated temperatures, all twelve strains improved.

How much each strain improved by and what happened to their viability at reduced temperatures was different for each strain. Two thirds were worse than the original at reduced temperatures. But not all.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Have you even played poker? Heard about bluffing per chance?

Yes , I have acutally played poker.

Heard about calling someone's bluff. perchance?

While I was a little hasty when I said the rarer hand always win, bluffing does not guarantee a win. This, therefore, takes us back to the realm of probability, as bluffing can be considered part of playing the optimum strategy.

Oh and as articulett pointed out you should go look back at my actual post. Since people aren't actually reading a goddamn thing I'm saying with any sort of care though it does not surprise me that you missed the point that in a Texas Hold 'Em game you only have two hole cards and as such you can't be sure whether or not you have a winning hand before all the community cards are dealt (in most cases). It's what makes it a far more interesting game than draw Poker.

I do read your posts. I just think your analogies are extremely poor and are also used to make false distinctions. For instance, the whole analogy to a poker game is flawed, because the win is not completely determined by the cards you are dealt, making it axiomatically random. This does not mean that there is not some sturucture to the game, but when the out come is not certain, it by definition random.

 

[cyborg]

Heard about calling someone's bluff. perchance?

It's funny when you think you are countering my points because you are just enhancing the message.

Bluffing ain't a fallible strategy you say? Well, that sounds rather much like life - of course you randomites demand that any strategy employed must be infallible to be deterministic, as if the enemy were an afterthought - an inconvenience in the scope of planning a war.

While I was a little hasty when I said the rarer hand always win, bluffing does not guarantee a win. This, therefore, takes us back to the realm of probability, as bluffing can be considered part of playing the optimum strategy.

But, as I have alluded to several times, it ain't dice doing the bluffing.

For instance, the whole analogy to a poker game is flawed, because the win is not completely determined by the cards you are dealt, making it axiomatically random.

Haha, it's so funny because you miss the point again about how relevant it is. No, the cards DO NOT completely determine the outcome. This relates perfectly to the fact that one's genetics do not completely determine the outcome.

You need PLAYERS too.

This does not mean that there is not some sturucture to the game, but when the out come is not certain, it by definition random.

The outcome is not certain due to uncertainty, not randomness. See the top of the last page.

The cards are dealt. The players will act as they do. Randomness only applies to the shuffle - not the progress of the hand.

ETA: Again I implore you: how does you argument change if the shuffle is determined? (Hint: it shouldn't, because it's not the randomness that is most important - it is the lack of information about the other player's hands.)

 

[articulett]

I did not use QED wrong. Your post demonstrated that, until the randomites abandoned their definition of "random" and stopped disagreeing with those who used it differently (and improperly in a technical setting), you would continue to consider their argument as being like Behe's.

Oh yes you did use it wrong. Polonius. You are just too much of a buffoon to realize it. And I DON"T care whether you abandon your term or not--what do I care if you are vague and sound like Behe? I'm just glad to be able to laugh at you. I was just dropping by and answering the question in the OP...until I realized you didn't want an answer. Now I'm just enjoying the sport.

And I am not a dyed in the wool non-randomite (which is a malapropism). I don't care what words you use. I tend to stick with the experts; they are much more clear than you. But I'm open to evidence that it might be useful to describe natural selection as random, but I'd like to see a respected scientist say so first--you know, the way many have said that it's 'not random". As for myself, there's lots of words I use-- preferential selection is good; so is deterministic, biased, oriented towards order... most anything that distinguishes the order bringer from the pool of randomness. And "non-random" clearly works too.

Again, I am not the one having trouble understanding the "nonrandom" parts of evolution. I didn't start a thread saying, "what is the evidence for evolution being random" so I could keep saying such assertions were wrong. You are projecting your own immutable conclusion about evolution being random onto me in regards to "nonrandom". Being a "nonrandomists" is probably like being in atheist...you just don't believe in using the word random to define evolution. This thread is a testament as to why. (QED )

And creationists never abandon their arguments...never ever--so don't think I have delusions there. And yes, all those who sum up evolution as random are as clear as Behe is. Clearly, you don't seem to understand natural selection. Why wouldn't any serious person make a concerted effort not to define evolution like Behe unless they were a creationist? To those of us who do, you just sound stubbornly ignorant. It's all about semantics right? Why wouldn't you go for the clearest terms even if it meant letting go of what you want natural selection to be defined as?

To repeat, I'm not insisting that natural selection is non-random--in fact, mutations aren't even truly random--I, like the vast majority of people on this thread think it's misleading to define it like Behe does...and the way you do... Yes, Dawkins, Ayala, et. al. trump you and your fellow randomites by a longshot. You truly don't seem to understand natural selection any better than Behe. And, of course, you never will, because you are Kleinman II. But Jim Bob and Schneibster might.

In the mean time, I enjoy watching cyborg give a couple of jabs to this dead horse. It can't fix what ails you, but it makes me glad I'm not you.

Real scientists correct their mistakes and refine their understanding--the faithful just appeal to emotionalism and semantics since the facts never seem to be on their side. They believe themselves "infallible" just like the invisible guy they believe in.

 

[Schneibster]

Nope. Thanks for missing the point though. Seems like there are a lot of people very adept at doing that here.

What, you DIDN'T imply that? You're kidding, right? Let's review your post:

You say that as if the player's own hand were the most important factor.

Whatever. If you want to argue, please try to make sense, and keep track of the arguments, k?

Clearly you are not following me otherwise you would not be saying such stupid things.

ONCE THE CARDS HAVE BEEN RANDOMISED WHAT EVERYONE WILL GET IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED. YOU MAY ASSESS WHAT THE PLAYERS HAVE STATISTICALLY BUT THEIR CARDS ARE ALREADY SET! IT IS NO LONGER A MATTER OF CHANCE!

From the player's point of view, it is- minus the cards the player has been dealt. This is why discards are not permitted to be seen by other players in draw poker. The player does not care that the hand has been dealt- the player sees only hir own hand. Evaluations of other hands in the game are based only upon evaluations of probability. It is that which makes stud games with cards dealt face-up interesting- there is more information available on which to base such evaluations.

If you don't get that then why not try playing a hand face-up and see how random the cards in the other player's hands are once they are dealt.

Never mind.

ETA: ever play pinochle?

 

[Schneibster]

The fundamental flaw in this analogy is that the rarer hand always wins over the more common hand in poker. This is not the case in evolution; the fitter organism does not always reproduce.

Whoopsie. Nope, not at all. Poker includes bluffing.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Whoopsie. Nope, not at all. Poker includes bluffing.

I already acknowledged that above. Bluffing, however, still does not guarantee you will win, and where there is no guarantee, you are dealing with probability.

By the way, in probability theory, the opposite of any given event is also an event, and the "event" that nothing happens is impossible. I think that answers you concerns about my misuse of "determinism":

A probabilistic system is "determined" in the sense that the axioms of probability require that an even must occur.​

Therefore, if classical determinism doesn't really exist, all systems are probabilistic. This, however does not mean that there are not, in some situations, very good deterministic approximations (i.e., Rouzine and coworkers' deterministic model of viral evolution for "sufficiently large populations") that yield nearly identical results as the true probabilistic situations when used with the proper set of caveats.

 

[Schneibster]

Mijo, if I bluff, and you fold, and I hold a busted flush and you have a pair of kings, then the higher-ranking hand did not win.

 

[cyborg]

Whatever. If you want to argue, please try to make sense, and keep track of the arguments, k?

It is not my problem if you do not get it Schneibster.

If you don't get that evaluating the odds of your own hand winning is less important than trying to figure out what it is other people have, (you know, the minor detail of rectifying the ignorance that actually affects how one should proceed with play) then we should play some Poker.

From the player's point of view, it is-

Yes. From the player's point of view.

But surely you are not arguing that the player's point of view has an affect on the cards themselves are you? That is very woo.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo, if I bluff, and you fold, and I hold a busted flush and you have a pair of kings, then the higher-ranking hand did not win.

I'm not quite sure what you think I am arguing but I have already acknowledged that I did miss the act of bluffing as a situation in which it is possible for a higher ranking hand to lose. However, as I have said before and as I think you realize, bluffing does not guarantee that you will win; there is still a chance you will lose, and that is why poker and most other card and dice game are inherently probabilistic.

Once again, I jumped the gun by saying that the rarer hand always wins, but as far as I know, there is no guaranteed honest way to win a poker game other than being dealt a ace-high straight flush in spades in which case you are totally at the mercy of randomness.

 

[cyborg]

You may play Poker against dice mijo, I do not.

 

[mijopaalmc]

cyborg-

When you start to pick at my stylistics, I its a sure sign that you have no cogent argument.

Anyway the thing that you are completely missing about poker or any other game that is played with card or dice (which is what I meant by "card and dice game") is that with incomplete information the best you can do is evaluate the odds of winning with the hand you are dealt.

 

[cyborg]

When you start to pick at my stylistics, I its a sure sign that you have no cogent argument.

Your 'stylistics'?

(That would be a pick at your stylistics.)

It's quite simple really mijo - are you playing against dice or not? If not then it is simply incredulous to pretend that winning the hand is simply a matter of allowing the fates to dictate it.

Anyway the thing that you are completely missing about poker or any other game that is played with card or dice (which is what I meant by "card and dice game") is that with incomplete information the best you can do is evaluate the odds of winning with the hand you are dealt.

Um no - because as I continually have to point out to you people there are players behind the other cards, not dice.

The best Poker players play the players; not the cards. Knowing the odds of your own hand winning is the beginning, not the end, of a formulating a Poker strategy. You cannot simply pretend that the other players are immaterial to deciding how to play and that's what betting is all about.

If you continually pretend aspects of the game simply don't exist then you're going to continue to be wrong. So again I have to ask, have you ever actually played Poker?

 

[Schneibster]

It is not my problem if you do not get it Schneibster.

It is if you failed to explain it.

If you don't get that evaluating the odds of your own hand winning is less important than trying to figure out what it is other people have, (you know, the minor detail of rectifying the ignorance that actually affects how one should proceed with play) then we should play some Poker.

If you don't get that the odds of your own hand winning depend upon what it is other people have, you're right, we should.

Yes. From the player's point of view.

And that's what I was saying.

But surely you are not arguing that the player's point of view has an affect on the cards themselves are you? That is very woo.

Why would I argue something ridiculous like that?

 

[cyborg]

It is if you failed to explain it.

I've only been saying the same thing for several pages now.

If you don't get that the odds of your own hand winning depend upon what it is other people have, you're right, we should.

Then you and I are saying the same things and I cannot possibly understand why you think it is random unless you are Harvey Two-Face.

Why would I argue something ridiculous like that?

I don't know - why did you argue that it is random? I don't know how you play the game but generally I shuffle the cards before handing them out. Again I invite you to turn the cards face up and tell me if you are seeing just one value per card or if the cards are in some sort of superposition that only collapses at the end of a hand.

Game set-up: random. Game in play: non-random.

What you randomites seem to be insisting is that a random set-up makes the game outcome random - despite the existence of rules, players and strategies that are clearly not random. Well if the outcome of a hand of Poker is random then just what the **** is with all that **** in the middle between shuffling and someone collecting the pot supposed to achieve? If it's random then clearly it can't achieve anything - the definition of random demands that to be the case. A random outcome is without purpose, direction or cause.

Does that accurately reflect a game of Poker? Are the results of your hands without purpose, direction or cause?

 

[mijopaalmc]

cyborg-

What don't you understand about the random game-setup determining the non-random game-play?

You cannot guarantee me that I will win given a specific initial hand. That is what makes the outcome of the game random.

For a description of poker odds both before and after the draw in draw poker and at different stages of stud or hold 'em poker, I suggest you read Mike Caro's Poker University's Odds: Index of Statistical Tables and Odds: A Tour of the Statistical Tables.

 

[cyborg]

You cannot guarantee me that I will win given a specific initial hand. That is what makes the outcome of the game random.

No mijo, no it does not.

A random outcome is one without purpose, direction or cause.

Yet again I ask: what the **** are you doing bothering with all the **** between dealing hands and collecting the pot if the end result is without purpose, direction or cause? Why aren't you rolling dice to decide who wins each round? Why are some player's of the game considered 'better' if the result of each game is entirely random? I guess these people are all just very lucky right?

I cannot help but be entirely bemused by someone arguing that the outcome of a game of Poker is random and then proceeding to provide me with links to Poker strategies.

Tell me mijo - what the **** is the point of having a strategy for a game whose outcome is entirely random?

Not guaranteeing your ability to win DOES NOT mean the outcome is random - it means you are not guaranteed to win and you are not guaranteed to win because of the rules of the game: not because the choice of winner is arbitrary.

Is the choice of winner arbitrary? Answer yes for random; answer no not to look stupid.

 

[mijopaalmc]

A random outcome is one without purpose, direction or cause.

Uh....no it is not. The original question in this thread was if I defined random as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution", WHICH IS THE ONLY DEFINITION OF RANDOM THAT I HAVE EVER USED IN THIS THREAD (having more than one outcome for the same initial conditions lends itself immediately to a description by a probability distribution), how was evolution not random. So far, you have not been able to explain how poker does not fit the definition above. A strategy merely increases your chances of winning; it doesn't guarantee them.