What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

The support for the theory of evolution is extremely good. The only real questions are relatively minor mistakes. Well, minor can be in the eye of the beholder, but even if the dating of objects has a massive calculating error of a factor of 10 larger or smaller, the general concept behind evolution is not really in question.

The only way the general idea behind evolution could be false would be for something of vast power to have deliberately created all of existence lets say, 10 thousand years ago, and then go through all the trouble to tediously and meticulously fabricate all the evidence to fool us into believing existence was older and deliberately trick us into believing in evolution. This does not fit with the Christian concept of God. Why would God go through all that trouble to fabricate evidence the God does not exist?

However, there does not have to be a Christian God for Evolution to show a designed ordered structure. There does not have to be any conscious intelligence behind a designed ordered structure.

I realize that may be a hard concept for some people to grasp, but it is true.

If the underlying rules of how a system works are such that an ordered design will be structured/built, then there does not need to be any intelligent directing of that process. This is evident all over the place in nature.

Lets pick a real simple structure, a natural forming hexagonal crystal. A hexagonal crystal is an ordered structure. It is built by design according to the fundamental laws controlling our existence without any involvement from an intelligent life form. The rules of nature dictate such a crystal will form given the correct conditions. It is very repeatable and very reliable.

There may be elements of randomness and chaos in the process of evolution, but the overall structure of evolution is not random. It works along very ordered and predictable rules just like randomly distributing seeds under the right condition will result in new growth from those seeds.

The two questions that I’d have related to this is, considering how complex, and quite beautify I might add, the rules controlling our existence are and our evolution, did something intelligent deliberately design those rules and did those rules just somehow randomly come into existence?

Keep in mind that the fundamental laws of our existence dictate with absolute certainty that intelligent life capable of learning like we are will develop, not just once, but many times.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Can you read?

I said "emphatic" not "empathic".

And the fact that you are capitalizing on a slip-up that I made about my knowledge of probability theory, when I obviously meant the opposite of what I said, displays the intellectual poverty of your argument, especially since you have yet to cite a textbook in probability theory that agrees with peculiar notion of probability.
Click to expand...

Oh... now it makes more sense... kind of... Emphatic... Well, the big red letters are kind of childish to me... and the little stars are more reflective of my own feelings... so I'm not sure if it's the agreement really or the way the big red letters make me giggle

Intellectual poverty... yeah... gee... ya' got me there you intellectually rich one, you. Ah yes... and put the burden of proof on others to disprove your inane claims. How very creationist of you. And what intellectual wealth in shows! Please don't scare me with big red letters, now....
 
articulett said:
Oh... now it makes more sense... kind of... Emphatic... Well, the big red letters are kind of childish to me... and the little stars are more reflective of my own feelings... so I'm not sure if it's the agreement really or the way the big red letters make me giggle

Intellectual poverty... yeah... gee... ya' got me there you intellectually rich one, you. Ah yes... and put the burden of proof on others to disprove your inane claims. How very creationist of you. And what intellectual wealth in shows! Please don't scare me with big red letters, now....
Click to expand...

So do you have a source that corroborates your definitions of probability?
 
I find it funny that mijo started arguing about convergence when I asked him to name something non-random because I do believe that was my argument earlier.

Being a contrarian can be fun! And it was the easiest way to show you for the dishonest **** you are mijo.

Welcome to ignoredom.
 
cyborg said:
I find it funny that mijo started arguing about convergence when I asked him to name something non-random because I do believe that was my argument earlier.

Being a contrarian can be fun! And it was the easiest way to show you for the dishonest **** you are mijo.

Welcome to ignoredom.
Click to expand...

I know you are ignoring me, but I think it is interesting that you and articulett don't think that the convergence of random variables lend order to randomness.

On of the simplest statements of the central limit theorem in statistical practice is that for a sample of a population with mean [latex]\mu[/latex] and standard deviation [latex]\sigma[/latex], and the sample size [latex]n[/latex] increases the mean of the sampling distribution (i.e., the collection of all means of all samples) approaches [latex]\mu[/latex] with a standard deviation of [latex]$$\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt n}$$[/latex].

Now, it should be clear that as [latex]n[/latex] approaches infinity that the mean of the sampling distribution approaches zero, meaning that variation in a sample decreases as the sample size increases converging on a single value.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
So do you have a source that corroborates your definitions of probability?
Click to expand...


Better yet... I have a definition of random from a peer reviewed source... and a definition of evolution that says natural selection is non-random from a peer reviewed source. I have the majority of top biologists say that change on the genetic level is relatively random, while change in species over time is determined by genomes that build the best replicators.

Better yet, I have an example, that even simpletons can follow and understand to see how appearance of design can result from exponential growth of successful mutations. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

Nobody who wanted to be clear would say that the way all the butterflies carry the new mutation is random. And it's evolution, observed... which creationists hate, of course, because they like to obfuscate understanding so that it all sounds, well nigh, impossible like Von's Dickens analogy or the tornado in the junkyard.

Moreover, I don't need to prove anything since my definition is the one people who count seem to find the most useful and clear. It's at Talk Origins and The Berkeley site and something similar to it is stated by every well known and respected person in the field. The only semi-scientist seems to be defining evolution as "random" and using the term as loosely as you is Michael Behe, a known proponent of intelligent design. Moreover, a few vocal creationists dropped by this thread to drive the point home. Quite a few learned people drop by to say that natural selection is not random. Some people like wings pointed out that one could rightly say that nothing in the physical world is truly random as far as we know, because every event has a cause-- we just don't know all the inputs... of course "intelligent design" like to suppose that cause is god or allah or xenu or space aliens-- which is fine, but leads to an infinite regress.

Evolution is a fact. You can understand it and convey the understanding to others or you can pretend you understand it and obfuscate the understanding of others. Clearly you do the latter. And I have jumped through many hoops to get you exactly the evidence you "request" which is inane...since my claim is the accepted status quo--you're the one wanting to sum up evolution as random-- but you may no heed to it, and say silly things like that Dawkins is wrong and Ayala is wrong--but you, Mijo, are somehow right even though you cannot convey the difference between Poker and Roulette with your definition of random and you can not convey how the order we see comes about. Scientists don't use loose terminology just so they can call things random, nor do they call something a random process just because it has some randomness. Yet everything you say is doing just that. You didn't want an answer to your OP question. You wanted to play a semantic game so that you could prove to yourself that scientists really do think this all came about by chance--ala the whirlwind in the junkyard.

Have you ever conveyed any information of value to anyone--or is your whole existence about obfuscating an understanding of evolution and "the fossil record" so you can feel smarter than actual scientists and honest people on this thread?
 
Last edited:
You know, articulett, it has been amply demonstrated that every single source you cite contradicts itself by referring to evolution as "non-random" and the saying that "adaptive variation increase the probability of survival", or something to that effect.

The only way you get around that is by redefining probability in a way that make it meaningless, a statement which has also been demonstrated to be false.

I would actually help you to read what people post in response to you.
 
mijopaalmc said:
No, that is not my argument. At least that is not my argument in the way that you want it to be my argument.

You seem to be saying that since QM is random in the sense that QM events are acausal and unpredictable, then I am saying that everything that is built up from these acausal and unpredictable events (which everything is) must be equally acausal and unpredictable. That is a patently absurd position to take given that you claim to have superior knowledge of probability and statistics. You are completely ignoring that random variables (i.e., the outcomes of these acausal and unpredictable events) converge on given values as the number of repetitions increase. This lends order to random event and can possibly make causality an emergent property of many acausal events.
Click to expand...

Let me add another two cents as well. Another way of saying basically the same thing is that many things can be modelled very well without using probabilistic descriptions. Therefore, they are not random.

(This says the same thing mijo is saying because the things that can be modelled without probabilistic definitions are the ones that are certain to converge.)

Fifty pages ago, mijo asked a very simple question. Of course, the manner it was asked, especially referring to something that happened in a different thread, could easily have been misinterpreted, but the reasonable people said, "What do you mean by that?" and mijo answered. By page four, it was pretty clear what he meant.
 
mijopaalmc said:
You know, articulett, it has been amply demonstrated that every single source you cite contradicts itself by referring to evolution as "non-random" and the saying that "adaptive variation increase the probability of survival", or something to that effect.

The only way you get around that is by redefining probability in a way that make it meaningless, a statement which has also been demonstrated to be false.

I would actually help you to read what people post in response to you.
Click to expand...

I would hope you would have learned by now that no peer reviewed source or credible person is using random to describe "anything having to do with probability." Even my slow students, could read this article and see why:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

Is it just random that all the males now have the mutation? To Mijo it is. And so, to Mijo, evolution is of course "random"--as uninformative as that may be to actual human beings and as close as that is to the creationist canard. Will he admit it's a misleading word? No, he'll just call all the peer reviewed scientists wrong or pretend that they are saying what he is saying if they describe a probability in any way. Transparent, Mijo. You sure ain't gonna fool anybody who actually understands the process.

Honest people usually aim for clarity--they don't fight to describe things in a vague way because they are attached to the notion of something being random. Especially honest people who were actually interested in how evolution is not random.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
I would hope you would have learned by now that no peer reviewed source or credible person is using random to describe "anything having to do with probability." Even my slow students, could read this article and see why:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

Is it just random that all the males now have the mutation? To Mijo it is. And so, to Mijo, evolution is of course "random"--as uninformative as that may be to actual human beings and as close as that is to the creationist canard. Will he admit it's a misleading word? No, he'll just call all the peer reviewed scientists wrong or pretend that they are saying what he is saying if they describe a probability in any way. Transparent, Mijo. You sure ain't gonna fool anybody who actually understands the process.

Honest people usually aim for clarity--they don't fight to describe things in a vague way because they are attached to the notion of something being random. Especially honest people who were actually interested in how evolution is not random.
Click to expand...

"Anything that involves probability" is a good definition. It is the basis for all of probability theory and statistics. It is you who thinks that it is meaningless because you claim that it describes everything. You are obfuscating because because you have used every other definition of "random" to try to refute me when I have explicitly about the only definition I have been using.
 
mijopaalmc said:
"Anything that involves probability" is a good definition. It is the basis for all of probability theory and statistics. It is you who thinks that it is meaningless because you claim that it describes everything. You are obfuscating because because you have used every other definition of "random" to try to refute me when I have explicitly about the only definition I have been using.
Click to expand...

Yes, but no peer reviewed source seems to be using that definition. It doesn't distinguish Poker from Roulette.

But if it makes you happy--then I side with cyborg-- happy happy clappy clappy.... whatever you need to do to keep your illusion alive.
 
articulett said:
Yes, but no peer reviewed source seems to be using that definition. It doesn't distinguish Poker from Roulette.

But if it makes you happy--then I side with cyborg-- happy happy clappy clappy.... whatever you need to do to keep your illusion alive.
Click to expand...

And it doesn't need to distinguish poker from roulette. The nature of the probability of the distribution does that, the former being an extremely complex martingale process and the latter being a simple discrete uniform distribution.

What's so hard to understand about that?
 
Rodney said:
Yes. I'm not saying I agree with that analysis, but at least it's an attempt to address the issue.
Click to expand...

Then I can't really help you out here Rodney.

If you can be precise about what it is you need to see as far as the mechanism in action then I can help out.

I don't really think you are interested in whether it is true or not though - not that you'll admit that if it is the case of course but there you go.
 
Mozybyte said:
Culett, you single handed do more for the Creationist movement than themselves.
Rhetoric and abuse will not shy a mind that works, only exposes yours and your disdain of others.
I understand how important it is to you to have us all follow you and you alone, but so far, about yourself only inadequate Dogma shows... Not to mention the Immaturity and lack of Charm. Maybe you could get a flute... Can You Dance? Sing?
You do seem to have plenty of time for the ideas of others... Maybe you ought to question your abilities a little more, or failing that, stop questioning others... Do your thing... Show us the brilliance of your mind, the Origin of your species.
By the way, Thanks for the welcome, you are truly gifted...
I'm so proud that I got the attention of God on my first post here, and that you know me so well... Do you give Mass?
Click to expand...
:)
Mozybyte said:
It is unbelievable to see how much Religious Paternity has ruffled scientists, if the Science on Evolution was indeed steadfast conclusive rather than perceived no one would give the time of day or engage "Creationists".
55 pages so far of this garble is sufficient proof of the Vagueness of both arguments...
Live and let live, You are both as "Boxed" as each other... For a different outcome, and potential growth, try stepping out with a Clear Open Mind, heck! Become real Scientists...
Evolution explains Nothing, Creation by virtue of Supernatural means explains even less, no wonder you guys like each others company so much.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT CREATION, but I'm certain about Creativity and its possibilities... Somehow ALL come from Nothing, Get to work! You BUMS.

Oh Yeah, I forgot...
0+(-C)= EverythingHere
Click to expand...
:)
Great posts Moz'. THis thread isn't dead, yet????

There are excellent science forums on the web. JREF is not a science forum.

Jref is where you can study what self-assigned-bishops of the evolution doctrine think. You can see how they care and feed the new bloods. When they give it all they've got, you see 'all they've got' in all it's vapidity. You can see their quixotic fights against their 'cretin heathen enemy'.

Some of these "skeptics" may actually rate minimum criteria for being Mensa members, and if they do, they probably actually attend the meetings. It's a security thing for the insecure.

I can't believe they've not closed shop on this one yet. Some jref insider should PM Art' to tell her that her knickers are down, exposing her arse (again). Where's the damage control 'round heah...??:)
 
Last edited:
Oh, one more thing...
Art', when 'borg used "happy clappy" it was hilarious.

Now you've hijacked it from him. You've worn it out and 'borg can't use it now for probably 5000 more posts. You need to get your own material, girl. Why don't you do a search on "747" and "obfuscation/tious/ness" and other words you are fond of. Cripe you are more repetitive than I am !
 
VonNeumann said:
Oh, one more thing...
Art', when 'borg used "happy clappy" it was hilarious.

Now you've hijacked it from him. You've worn it out and 'borg can't use it now for probably 5000 more posts. You need to get your own material, girl. Why don't you do a search on "747" and "obfuscation/tious/ness" and other words you are fond of. Cripe you are more repetitive than I am !
Click to expand...

Von, you sad old man... Is nobody taking your scifi-panspermia-nylonase-miracle -creation story seriously yet? You know, if those of you with an "alternate theory" would unite and learn some basic grammar, you could write up the a real paper that overthrows evolution and proves whatever intelligent designer it is you answer to. Why fritter your time on JREF when you you know the real true way life evolved and why it just happens to look exactly what one would expect it to look like if nothing amazing was involved at all. How can mijo's randomness result in such stellar genius as yours? It must be part of some plan!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom