What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

mijo,

Yes, I know, but does that stop him ******ing typing out the *** letters in the first ***** place, or does he just find it **************** cathartic
 
I honestly don't know but I prefer the phrase "intellectual poverty" to the phrase "****ing stupidity" any day.:D
 
Last edited:
I'm curious as to why the "randomites" act so offended when they argue in this thread yet the very same people take no end of pleasure in antagonizing kleinmann (or at least in feeding his delusion that his ideas have any intellectual merit as they are getting a response from those who try to refute him).

The only difference that I can see between the two of us is that me proudly accepts the label "creationist" whereas I see it as a method of trivializing my arguments.
 
You trivialize yourselves...you use the term "random" so loosely that it can apply to anything. You assume that anything that contains any randomness can be called a random process. The rest of the planet finds this bizarre. I don't know anyone who who would claim that the winner of poker is chosen at random. It's just so embarrassingly misleading. And truly, the only people I know who sum up evolution as random are creationists, Jim-bob and Schneibster.

And there isn't an argument in the world that will get you guys to undestand how unclear you are--not even peer reviewed scientists saying natural selection is not random!

Kudos to Cyborg for trying. Until you have a definition that explains how the order comes from the non-order...you randomites have a useless definition. Just as in Poker...the interesting stuff has to do with the "non random". You guys just can't seem to convey a thing about that; all you see is the randomness.

I have long lost the ability to make sense of mijo. Does he make sense to you Jim Bob and Schneibster?
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Until you have a definition that explains how the order comes from the non-order...you randomites have a useless definition.
Click to expand...

Try the central limit theorem, which provides a simple result that multiple experiments converge on a single expected value over many repititions. There are similar limit theorems for stochastic processes. Seriously, articulett, before you claim that we trivialize ourselves when we talk about order coming from disorder, you might actually want to know something about the topic before you open your mouth, but then again speaking out you a** seems to be your specialty.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Try the central limit theorem, which provides a simple result that multiple experiments converge on a single expected value over many repititions. There are similar limit theorems for stochastic processes. Seriously, articulett, before you claim that we trivialize ourselves when we talk about order coming from disorder, you might actually want to know something about the topic before you open your mouth, but then again speaking out you a** seems to be your specialty.
Click to expand...

I think the consensus is that it's much more your specialty. I understand quite a bit about evolution, and you may want to know about why Dawkins et. al. call natural selection "not random" before trying to describe it to someone else. You might also want to understand why it would be uninformative and misleading to call poker a game of chance or a game where a winner is chosen at random. Or you can keep pretending like you are saying something important without saying anything at all. I'm sure Behe thinks that about his explanations too.
 
Last edited:
Uh...it was you who claimed that the randomites had not demonstrated how order could arise from disorder and it was you who claimed that you yourself had take college-level courses in probability and statistics. It seems that you took those very special courses in probability and statistics that fail to mention weak convergence and the central limit theorem, which both demonstrate that statistical "noise", an integral part of statistical sampling processes such as natural selection, decreases over both large samples and many repetitions of a given experiment.

Furthermore, you are yet again misrepresenting my position. I never said that the winner of a poker "is chosen at random"; I said that the winner of a poker game is determined by random factors. The phrase "at random" is an adverbial phrase meaning "without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way" or "[a]t haphazard, without aim, purpose, or fixed principle; heedlessly, carelessly, etc.", whereas "random" is an adjective that has (as has been discussed at rather sickening length) many different definitions, the only one of which I have used is "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution". The description "different results from the same initial conditions" naturally arises.

The winner of a poker game is determined by the probability distributions defined the cards already dealt. This, however, does not mean that the winner is determined by a randomly generated with "randomly" meaning "[o]f or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely", as is a the flip of a fair coin or the roll of a fair die; the probabilities of winning are restricted (or biased) by what cards were originally dealt and what other card are subsequently dealt or exchanged. However, since winning cannot be guaranteed, it is still a fundamentally probabilistic outcome.
 
Mijo,...you are the only one being so vague as to describe anything that can be related to a probability system as "random".

This means that everytime you see something that has any sort of probability distribution in it--you can say, "aha...see, it's random!" And I see your insults like Dawkins sees Behe... just so grasping and defeated and useless and vague and obfuscating.

Nobody of respect is summing up evolution as a random process. You know it. And so does everybody else. Pretend away, though... you are almost as amusing and pathetic as Kleinman. Lots of big words...absolutely clueless...unable to be comprehended by anyone. Do let me know if you find a peer reviewed paper that says "natural selection is random". Or "evolution is random"...or even "evolution is best described as a stochastic process" (not just the mutation part...as in the prior article you quoted.) Or even one that says Dawkins and/or Ayala are wrong to call natural selection "non-random".

And I would put my education next to yours any day. You aren't clear to anyone. You're just a sad old fool determined to believe that "evolution is random" no matter how vague or misleading or useless or wrong such a claim might be. The rest of science has left your definition and Behe's in the dust for much better and clearer uses of language.

Yes, per your useless definition, evolution is random. As is anything. As Cyborg pointed out--100% is part of a probability distribution...therefore, everything can be described as random per your vague definiton. Good luck getting anyone of credibility to care. For the rest of us, random components do not a random process make. Evolution is a principle with two parts. You can only see one...in the exact same way that Behe does. It's so...pathetic. I mean, horse races are random per your silliness. And grades and daily temperatures. (I don't think it would go over well, if I told my students that I chose their grades at random.) Clarity counts in science. You just aren't clear to anyone but yourself.
 
Last edited:
articulett-

How is describing "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" vague and obfuscating?

You're going to have to better than "any situation can be described as that", because if you have studied probability or statistics as much as you claim to, you would understand why that "argument" is a straw man.
 
mijopaalmc said:
articulett-

How is describing "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" vague and obfuscating?

You're going to have to better than "any situation can be described as that", because if you have studied probability or statistics as much as you claim to, you would understand why that "argument" is a straw man.
Click to expand...

No mijo, that isn't a straw man. That is a fact. Your definition is too vague and all encompassing for anyone but creationists to find it useful. And this has been explained by many. As has the answer to the OP. But you insult the people who take the time to answer your questions while never hearing an answer that goes against anything that Behe wouldn't also agree to. I'd say that goes for every single post of yours. You ask insincere questions.

Evolution is a 4 syllable word... that doesn't say anything about how it creates something that looks designed but is not. The same goes for your vague definition that nobody else in the world seems to be using. Moreover, no scientist defines random in any peer reviewed paper as loosely and vaguely as you are...and I suspect that is because clarity is important. But of course, to creationist, obfuscation under the guise of "rigor" or "clarity" is the game.
 
You need to explain exactly how "random" is too vague a description of evolution or, for that matter, anything.

Right now your are waving your hands and expecting that we take your word that our definition of "random" is vague and obfuscating.

By the way, any scientist who describes evolution as a stochastic process is implicitly using our definition of "random".
 
Articulett,

which of these statements do you disagree with, and why?


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?
Click to expand...

Is it misrepresenting your argument to say that natural selection will always select the "fittest" organisms to reproduce, and axionmatically, an organism has evolutionary fitness if it reproduces?

If that is the case I would say that is a tautological statement. If you accept the definition of a trait as altering the probability of reproduction, and that this is the definiton of "fitness", then you can analyse how different traits interact and and affect fitness.
 
articulett said:
Until you have a definition that explains how the order comes from the non-order...you randomites have a useless definition.
Click to expand...
How many times does it have to be repeated to you? What part of the law of large numbers do you not get?

Wikipedia's definition is pretty good: "...as the number of independent repetitions of the experiment grows, the average of the observed outcomes approaches the average of all possible outcomes." It's just that simple.

If you want an interesting example, as opposed to that one, but one which is also related to evolution, try the topological problem of the nodes and edges, which Kaufman uses in his book, At Home in the Universe:

Take a box of buttons (in topology, those are called "nodes"). Throw the buttons on the floor. Pick up two buttons at random and connect them with a thread (in topology, the threads are called "edges"). Put them back where you got them. Pick up another two and connect them and put them back. Keep doing that.

The question is, how does the size of the largest interconnected network of buttons vary against the ratio of strings to buttons? The answer is highly counter-intuitive. It is not a smooth ratio; it is the sigma curve.

The size of the largest network stays quite small compared to the ratio of threads to buttons as the number of connections increases; up until the ratio gets to about 45%. At that point, the size of the largest network increases rapidly, from a few percent to over 95% of all the buttons being members of a single network, as the ratio of threads to buttons moves to 55%. After that, the size of the largest network varies only a little.

Now there's complex, orderly behavior emerging smoothly and naturally from underlying random behavior. It's a topological feature of all networks; and in fact, Kaufman has shown that this simple model may explain the evolution of proteins into auto-catalytic networks capable of consuming, metabolizing, excreting, and reproducing.

Now, there's not one, but two examples of order emerging from chaos. The first one explains how randomness at the individual level grows into orderly evolution at the species level perfectly. And in fact, it is precisely what biologists say about evolution, if they're not off on some ego-trip to do with what cretinists are saying. I've provided numerous examples on this thread of precisely this, and you've ignored every single one. Of course, you've also asserted that you never said "evolution is random" in this thread, on more than one occasion, and I've provided multiple examples- one of you saying it TWICE IN THE SAME POST. So I guess it's no surprise.

I took you off ignore because I just can't bring myself to really believe that you'll continue to engage in solipsism, lying, and ignoring points you don't like forever. You have to come to your senses sometime. When you do, you're going to be very embarrassed at how you've behaved.

ETA: I went back and checked, and it's actually THREE TIMES in one post. And you have not replied to that point.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious as to why the "randomites" act so offended when they argue in this thread yet the very same people take no end of pleasure in antagonizing kleinmann (or at least in feeding his delusion that his ideas have any intellectual merit as they are getting a response from those who try to refute him).

The only difference that I can see between the two of us is that me proudly accepts the label "creationist" whereas I see it as a method of trivializing my arguments.
Click to expand...



sphenisc said:
The only difference that I can see between the two of us is that me proudly accepts the label "creationist"
Click to expand...
If you're going to make a Freudian slip - make it a big one!

:D
Click to expand...


My sarcasm detectors came on with mijo's post, I suspect that that was intentional, and was not a random mistake.
 
Schneibster,
You may put me back on ignore. That is not what evolutionists are saying. Yes, order can and does emerge from chaos...but you are leaving out the whole notion of a replicating system...it's just plain ridiculous, as most everybody has said, to call natural selection random. You can...you can explain how order emerges from chaos all the time...but you are still missing the important part...how is it that organisms seem to fit in their environment so well...that the planet seems made for humans and the interactions of all the species in it. THAT is due to natural selection. As the Dawkins review of Behe's book says, to miss that, is to miss the WHY of the process...the speed at which miraculous looking designs can emerge...the honey bee's waggle dance, fish that clean other fishes teeth, the bacteria that live in our gut and help us digest food... you miss the whole algorithm of information building vectors to make as many copies of itself as possible.

Buttons do not reproduce. Nor do proteins...not until they make the first replicator.

And I am embarrassed for YOU. Because you cannot see or hear what anyone is telling you...it is misleading and uninformative to describe evolution the way you are describing it. I think it's because you really don't understand natural selection. Sure, Dawkins, et. al. use the term "non random" because of creationist obfuscation...but they will never call evolution random...especially not natural selection because it misses the lynchpin of truly understanding the process. It leads readily to the notion that this all happened "randomly"-- You might well think that... and I suppose it's true depending on how you define random...but to everybody else it really is like saying that Poker winners are chosen at random. Just because randomness plays a role, doesn't mean that it's the "reason" for the order... once the results are biased, they are not random... in fact, most biologists go out of their way to point out that mutations aren't completely random nor are matings. Mutations happen whether they are good, bad, or neutral for the vector carrying them. But what survives a mutation to reproduce is another thing all together. Once the cards are dealt, the random part of the game is over.

I have not lied, engaged in solipism, and points I've ignored are due to irrelevence. I have said nothing more than what Dawkins and Ayala said and the Berkeley site and Talk origins ...all in an attempt to answer a question that mijo didn't want answered. You claim there is a singular definition for random, but don't provide it. You claim your links and mine say what you are saying, though no-one else thinks so. And you ought to be embarrassed, I think. Because there is not a single scientist that I can find that says there is a "singlular" meaning for random as you allege nor are any of them calling natural selection random. The only one's calling evolution random is Behe and Mijo (creationists) and Jim-Bob is calling it probablistic...another vague term. It's like you guys need evolution to be random, so all you see is "random".

Face the facts, there is no amount of evidence that will allow you to say, natural selection is not random...or even that it's misleading or uninformative to sum up natural selection as a random process, right? And you've provided no information that actually say otherwise although you interpret some things that way. I have no vested interest in using "non-random". I'm just saying that you, mijo, and jim-bob all seem to be on different pages and no one seems to find your way of describing evolution anymore insightful than Behe's.

You insult me over semantics? I provide a peer reviewed paper that refers to natural selection as "not random" along with definitions for random that are not the same as you are using...I provide several links where multiple scientists, including Dawkins, saying natural selection is not random. I have provided multiple definitions of random from scientific sources. You, reject everything that doesn't allow you to boil evolution down to "random" while providing nothing. You quote Kaufman...but does he say natural selection is a random process? If so, provide the link. Has any peer reviewed source gone on record to say Dawkins or Ayala or Berkeley, etc. are wrong in calling natural selection as non random? Where is this magical definition that only you seem to know about?

Cyborg was correct...he explained it simply. Even if someone somewhere understands what the heck you mean when you call natural selection random, it's just too ambiguous for anyone with any credibility to use it. We have more precise ways of explaining things, and the way you explain things just makes it sound like you don't really understand natural selection.

You make claims, insult me, and you don't back up your claims. You may not be a creationist, but I don't think any biologist would think that you are describing evolution in a way that makes sense. Cyborg is so much more simple and clear. But you have some weird emotional investment in calling evoution random. Instead of insulting me--write to PNAS or write to the magazine Dawkins recommends Behe write to. I don't give a crap about what words you use. And I stand by everything I've said...and I feel vindicated that almost everything I have said is on par with Dawkins and Ayala...people, like myself, who have actually been successful in conveying the facts about evolution to other people.

When your description of evolution sounds very much like a known creationist obfuscater then it's you who ought to rethink your definition. When you play semantic games so you can twist things in a way that allows you to boil every sentence down to "evolution is random" then you have a really lame definition and a strong bias that you ought to look at.

Read Mijo and Jim Bob and Behe. What's the difference? Are they clear and informative? Do you think they are clearer and more informative than Dawkins and Ayala? I can't imagine anyone else anywhere thinks so. And you are on par with them. Insult me all you want, but face the facts...the majority on this thread and on this forum feel it's more explanatory to call natural selection "non-random" or "determined" than to call it random or stochastic. That is also true of the scientific community in general, Dawkins, Talk Origins, and the Berkeley site. And it is you who has been hoisted by your own petard.

I think both of us were better off when you had me on ignore. Why don't you discuss your deep insights with Jim Bob and Mijo, because I don't think you even understand each other. I want to know if there is anyone with any credibility saying "natural selection is random" or "a random process"?

Until that time, I'll stick with Ayala, Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Delphi_ote, Dr. A. cyborg, joobz, Paul A., Berkeley, and every single biologist and geneticist I know of rather than walk down the obfuscating road where only creationists, you, and Jim Bob seem to be hanging out. Sure, by your definition evolution is random. Good luck trying to get anyone to care about your definitions. I think the Dawkins review of Behe was very clear as to why and exactly what you are missing. The definition of evolution will evolve in whichever way describes it the best and in the most useful manner for the audience intended. You aren't anywhere close. Getting mad about it doesn't fix it. Make a case and take it to peer review. I can't help you. I think your explanation sucks.

You complain about me turning a deaf ear to all you said, but I think you've turned a deaf ear to everyone including highly reputable scientists unless you can twist their words into the understanding that "evolution is random".

And since you never ever provide a defintion or a peer reviewed paper where they actually say that natural selection is random while providing links that sure aren't saying what you are saying while insulting me (and I'm only reiterating what actual scientists are saying because I thought that Mijo was actually interested to the answer in his OP)...I think I'll do us both a favor and put you on ignore. I know you aren't a creationist, but you aren't making any sense to me...and I've seen you get into this little stubborn semantic stand off with others on this forum. It's just silly, Schneibster. The facts are the same. Why you want to continue to describe things in a particular way though multiple attempts have been made to show you that it is unclear is beyond me. But be my guest. You may not understand the answer to the OP. But I do. I thought I could shed some light on the subject. But some people already had the answer they wanted and nothing else will do.

I think the insults you use on me apply more to you than to me. But ignore me. I want to see you and mijo and jim-bob engage in deep discussions about how to best define evolution and how the order comes from the randomness. Maybe you can take Dawkins up on the advice he gave Behe and submit it to the culling process of peer review where it might get culled or selected (randomly, of course.).
 
Last edited:
Schneibster said:
And I'll say it again, articulett: you don't know what "random" means.
Click to expand...


And I'll say it again, you don't "get" natural selection and how it brings order to the randomness.

And if I don't know...then neither does Ayala or Dawkins...they are saying what I am saying...as is cyborg...Ivor...in fact, I have very little trouble understanding most scientists, but I have lots of trouble understanding you, mijo, and jim-bob. I want to know if anybody else understands you guys or if you understand each other.
 
jimbob said:
Articulett,

which of these statements do you disagree with, and why?




Is it misrepresenting your argument to say that natural selection will always select the "fittest" organisms to reproduce, and axionmatically, an organism has evolutionary fitness if it reproduces?

If that is the case I would say that is a tautological statement. If you accept the definition of a trait as altering the probability of reproduction, and that this is the definiton of "fitness", then you can analyse how different traits interact and and affect fitness.
Click to expand...

Yes you are misrepresenting me and haven't got a clue about the principle versus "playing the game" as cyborg said. Read Cyborg's poker analogy. Read Dawkins review of Behe's book at the link I provided. Or don't. Or read the PNAS article. I am just saying what they are saying...and sphendisc. And Ivor... and the majority of people on this thread and on other threads...and the Berkeley site...and talk origins. If you guys can't get it after all those attempts then just go with what you've got. You'll feel good and smug and like you are actually saying something, and the rest of us will feel like you impenetrable in the exact same way Behe is.

Everything in an organisms environment...including meteors and thorns is an "expected" part of nature and hence, an expected part of natural selection.

Random components do not a random process make until or unless there is a scientific source that distinctly says otherwise.

No need to take my word for it. PNAS says it. Dawkins says it. Everybody is saying it. You guys just can't hear it. And anything that you can twist to fit into your particular peculiar definition...you do...no matter how vague or misleading it is.

Face it, no amount of evidence in the world including hundreds of peer reviewed articles saying "natural selectin is not random" wouldn't get you to change your mind in the slightest. And the fact that there are no articles that say "natural selection IS random" doesn't bother you at all. You have very differing standards of evidence for what you already believe versus what you don't want to be true. tsk.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
I am just saying what they are saying...and sphendisc. And Ivor... and the majority of people on this thread and on other threads...and the Berkeley site...and talk origins.
Click to expand...

Don't drag me into taking a side, I'm an FSM creationist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom