What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Schneibster]

The outcome of a poker hand may depend on the random twitch of a finger. AFTER the cards are all dealt. C'mon, cyborg, you know this stuff.

 

[cyborg]

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", ... So far, you have not been able to explain how poker does not fit the definition above.

Since anything can be described by a probability distribution your definition is useless.

By your definition it is random. By your definition everything is random.

If you like your definition good for you. Well done. You want to obfuscate.

Good luck with that.

(In the unlikely case you don't understand why your definition is unhelpful I yet again refer you to the simple fact that a probability distribution can both be used to deal with uncertainty arising from a lack of information about a situtation and uncertainty arising from true randomness. Since you don't want to differentiate you want to obfuscate. If you don't want to update your definition to be more useful you want to be dishonest. If you want to be dishonest then that is your right. If that is the case simply tell me then I can place you on ignore.)

A strategy merely increases your chances of winning; it doesn't guarantee them.

But it is NOT because Poker is random (by a sane definition): it's because you have to contend with the fact that there are other people who also want to win and who don't want you to win.

If this is not the case mijo and you are in fact right that Poker is random because you can analyse possible outcomes with a probability distribution then please explain to me why we all go through the motions of playing the game when, by definition, the outcome of the game could be equally well determined by the appropriate rolling of dice as per the probability distribution? Because if you don't understand that when you use a probability distribution you are saying that you cannot determine an outcome any better than chance alone would allow then you just don't have a ****ing clue about any of the things you are talking about.

 

[cyborg]

The outcome of a poker hand may depend on the random twitch of a finger. AFTER the cards are all dealt. C'mon, cyborg, you know this stuff.

Um, if you're talking about a 'give', then it ain't random is it? It's determined by the fact another player is bluffing... and of course the reason why this is important is because you are resolving your own ignorance of the other cards; which of course makes your next play all the easier to determine.

 

[cyborg]

Just to ram the point home and because turnabout is fair play.

mijo: give me an example of something that cannot be "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution."

 

[mijopaalmc]

Just to ram the point home and because turnabout is fair play.

mijo: give me an example of something that cannot be "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution."

Things that can't be described by a probability distribution:

Elementary algebra, most of calculus and mathematical analysis (i.e., anything based on measures spaces whose measures are not probability measures or measurable spaces on which measures need not be defined), Euclidean geometry, and (I'm guessing) elementary predicate logics

Things that are best described with deterministic approximations:

Thermodynamics of very large ensembles of systems, evolution of "sufficiently large" populations, and non-surgical ballistics (i.e., ballistics at close range and for large target areas)

 

[cyborg]

Ah, so in your world 100% isn't a probability.

Thanks for playing. You lose.

 

[Schneibster]

Um, if you're talking about a 'give', then it ain't random is it? It's determined by the fact another player is bluffing... and of course the reason why this is important is because you are resolving your own ignorance of the other cards; which of course makes your next play all the easier to determine.

Unless this is a regional difference, it's called a "tell." Really good poker players know all about it and so you're faced with the proverbial chicken-and-egg problem: You know that I now know that you know that I know that you once knew that I would know that...

 

[mijopaalmc]

Ah, so in your world 100% isn't a probability.

Thanks for playing. You lose.

So you have a fail-safe strategy for winning a poker game?

Are you fabulously rich?

Do you have anyone to play with?

 

[cyborg]

Unless this is a regional difference, it's called a "tell."

That would be more correct yes.

Really good poker players know all about it and so you're faced with the proverbial chicken-and-egg problem: You know that I now know that you know that I know that you once knew that I would know that...

Do I really know that I have seen a tell or are you trying to subvert me with deliberately placed actions? Multiple interpretations abound but it all rather misses the point; it ain't about randomness - it's all about uncertainty and trying not to have it. I would be right in thinking you do not use a coin toss to make decisions in Poker right? Do you think what you ultimately decide to do is random? That's a philosophical question anyway that misses the point of this little Poker analogy - namely that you, as a player, are affecting the outcome of the game, not just the cards.

That's why we have Poker tournaments and not Roulette ones is it not?

 

[cyborg]

So you have a fail-safe strategy for winning a poker game?

Are you fabulously rich?

Do you have anyone to play with?

Poor mijo.

One more time: is 100% a probability?

Yes or no?

If yes you look rather unfashionable in saying that things are random if they can be expressed by probability distributions don't you? Particularly silly because you are saying non-random things are also random things. (Which is why I said your definition is unhelpful).

If no then you are rather rewriting the rules of what can be expressed by probabilities making mathematicians everywhere raise one eye-brow in surprise.

It is unfortunate that you do not seem to be unable to grasp the importance of the existence of players in a game of Poker but I can only highlight their existence so many times before I reflect on the irony of you asking me if I have anyone to play with.

It is also unfortunate that you do not seem to grasp that if I had X-ray vision á la Superman then I would win every single game of Poker I played. That you do not get that fail-safe strategies are impossible because of ignorance not randomness again is not my fault because I have only been trying to hammer this point home for several pages now.

Poor mijo - it is at about this point that an honest man who asked an honest question should be reassessing his views and a dishonest man should continue being full of bluster. As Marcel Wallace would say, "that's pride ****ing with you. **** pride."

 

[mijopaalmc]

100% is a certainty.

I challenge you to provide a citation that demonstrates said eye-brow raising.

It is a pity that you don't seem to grasp that the whole analogy of players that exist independently of their hands plays into the IDist idea of creators independent of their creations.

It is also a pity that you don't understand that it is in part the incomplete information that makes the outcome of the poker game random in the sense that it is based on the probability distribution.

I suggest you apply that Marcel Wallace quote to yourself before you insist I apply it to myself.

 

[cyborg]

100% is a certainty.

Yes it is.

I challenge you to provide a citation that demonstrates said eye-brow raising.

According to you P(X) = 1 is invalid.

Do you require a peer-reviewed article to show why that is going to cause mathematicians to raise their eye-brows?

It is a pity that you don't seem to grasp that the whole analogy of players that exist independently of their hands plays into the IDist idea of creators independent of their creations.

I cannot for the life of me even begin to see how you are drawing that analogy - it is missing the point of the Poker analogy somewhat (namely that it is quite wrong to claim that a game where there is no strategy that guarantees winning means that who wins the game is entirely random).

How are players analogous to creators? They certainly don't get to choose what their hands are. How is a hand their creation? It plainly isn't.

That is weak as hell mijo.

It is also a pity that you don't understand that it is in part the incomplete information that makes the outcome of the poker game random in the sense that it is based on the probability distribution.

Oh I understand why you think that. It is a pity you refuse to acknowledge why your chosen semantics leads to nonsense conclusions (namely that non-random things are, in fact, random, because they can be described in terms of probability distributions).

I suggest you apply that Marcel Wallace quote to yourself before you insist I apply it to myself.

Already do mijo.

 

[Schneibster]

Look, let's boil it down:

Evolution is made up of two parts.

One is mutation. There is no question that mutation is random.

The other part is selection. Many of the conditions that do the selecting are random; the asteroid impact is the ultimate example, but there are many others.

There is more to evolution than randomness; but that "more" is not properly expressed by the claim that evolution is not random. That claim is ridiculous on its face; both mutation and selection at the level of the individual are partly or wholly determined by random events.

The order of evolution is not visible at the level of the individual; however, the law of large numbers dictates that as the number of individuals increases, in the aggregate, the probabilities that appear random for the individual lead to orderly behavior of the group. This situation is no different than that for subatomic particles; random but probabilistic behavior of the individual, combined with the law of large numbers, yields orderly behavior of the aggregate. Order emerges in the aggregate group behavior that is determined- note the proper use of the word- by the combination of the probability distribution and the law of large numbers. And this emergence of order from chaos is an essential fact of both evolution and physics.

To deny the order is ridiculous; to deny the randomness just as ridiculous. All the clever analogies and sophistic arguments in the world will never get me to agree with the statement "evolution is not random" any more than they will ever get me to agree with the statement, "evolution is not orderly." It is both, and that is all there is to the matter. Now stop acting like children who have just discovered sophistry and don't think there's any answer to it; the answer, as they quickly find out, is that people who have to deal with you use force, and those who don't walk away. Articulett is now on ignore for sophistry; that is the walking away. If you don't care to join her, cyborg, stop playing kiddie games and either have a serious conversation or drop the matter.

 

[jimbob]

Further to Schneibester's post #1593.

As most organisms fail to reproduce, many of which would seem to be equally as well as adapted as the ones which do reproduce, the selection is more easily described in terms of probabilities than not.

Speciation tends to occur more easily in small, isolated populations, where genetic drift is more important than in larger populations.

Because of this, the random parts would be more important than for larger populations.

Can you describe the kinetic energy of an individual gas molecule at a particular temperature? No.

Can you work out what the probability of it occupying a particular range of energies is at a particular temperature? Yes.

The date of the next solar eclipse does not need to be described in terms of probabilities.

Could I say when the sunrise will be on 23rd Jan 3400? Yes.

Could I say what any individual organism's descendants will be then? No, because there is a high chance that they will not have reproduced.

best described in terms of probability distributions.

Is this "news" story utter tripe?

Yes, because we can't know.

 

[cyborg]

I can only point out reality so many times.

You are free to pretend that models are reality if you wish. You call evolution whatever the **** you like. If it is so important to you to use poor semantics then so be it.

Whatever.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I can only point out reality so many times.

You are free to pretend that models are reality if you wish. You call evolution whatever the **** you like. If it is so important to you to use poor semantics then so be it.

Whatever.

Unfortunately the "reality" that you keep pointing out is your own user-defined "reality" and not something that seems to describe what really is.

Poker is a game of chance and technological development is determined by agents extrinsic to the entity under development. Using either to demonstrate is at best unintentionally confusing and (more likely from the way this discussion has progressed) deliberately misleading.

 

[cyborg]

P(X) = 1 is impossible in your world.

Whatever.

 

[mijopaalmc]

P(X) = 1 is impossible in your world.

Whatever.

No, it's not impossible, but it means, by definition, that nothing else can happen. Therefore, everything wins (or survives) or loses (or dies).

 

[jimbob]

Cyborg, a question, do you actually type out the letters "f", "u", "c", and "k" every time, or just the four asterisks?

What are the poor semantics.


What do you disagree with:

1) The definiftion of random that I am using, where identical conditions will not always produce identical outcomes

2) That as weather is chaotic, quantum effects will influence this, and this will influence which survive?

3) That one (maybe not you) can use probabilistic models to evaluate the chances of individual organisms reproducing?

4) That with small populations, any effects of either "chance", or "unusual environmental factors" will be magnified?

5) That it is in principle impossible to predict what an organism's descendants will evolve into in a million yeard time?

6) That evolution is only predictible if the environmental selective pressures are predictible?

7) That it sometimes makes sense to talk about probability distribustions and sometimes doesn't, and which depends on whether it provides any additional information?

8) That most organisms will not reproduce?

9) That natural selection is highly efficient at weeding out the "weak", but that a majority of seemingly viable organisms will also fail to reproduce?

 

[mijopaalmc]

jimbob-

There is a "nanny ware" filter on the JREF forums that, as I understand it, autocensors profanity.