Dawkins weasel program random selection or selection at random?
backspace
".....The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters,
assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28
characters will be random....."
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a selection at random was
done, in the same way that if a person scrambling marbles in a bag and
taking one does a selection at random?
Dr. Acula
They are synonymous.
roki...@cox.net
It should have been like a blind draw from 28 letters in a bag with
replacement of the selected letter to the bag before the next draw.
Ron Okimoto
prig...@aol.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
and a few responses.
This reminds me of the heated debates of a couple of centuries ago,
when the idle intelligencia clashed over the question of how many
angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Doug Chandler
Occidental
If the Weasel algorithm is implemented in the usual way, the letters
are not chosen randomly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_numbers
John Smith
"backspace" <Steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:187cdc46-b875-4ad1...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
But - an "analogy" experiment or example never truly exemplifies reality.
There are rules, in nature, chemistry and physics, that are NOT included in
either Dawkins assertions, or the basic "marble in a bag" scenario.
Nowhere is it mentioned that when a "selection" is - or approaches - a
"right" answer, is that selection saved or favored in the next "choice".
Just using letters ..... "in" should be given a higher preference than
"ZX" - so incorporating that information would change the time (shorten it
immensely?) to come to a final conclusion.
The second fallacy here is that Dawkins picks the target before the analogy
begins.
Nature was never "directed" to "seek" humans as an evolutionary target!
To discard "Mary had a little lamb", because it does not, exactly, fit the
target set by the experimenter, is fraudulent.
backspace
The computer in the weasel program is really doing a "selection at
random" or probability sample, meaning intent is involved because it
follows an algorithm from a programmer. It specifically isn't doing a
"random selection" which has the intent of no consciousness. A
probability sample from stats still implies consciousness, somebody
had to devise a sampling algorithm. The application of such an
algorithm in a "non-random" or non-probability sampling way means a
conscious being narrowed the sets over which a sampling was
preformed.
Dr. Acula
That wasn't your question or related to my response (see: red herring
fallacy). The two phrases you chose are in fact synonymous.
Yes, someone had to create whatever thing is doing the selecting but
it doesn't matter. Occidental pointed you to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_numbers
which has a link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_randomness
I would suggest you read them and some other texts on statistics and
sampling and maybe take a course.
Dr. Acula
You may also want to read this:
http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CF/CF011_1.html
Damaeus
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> posted:
Speaking of humans, the problem with that is that natural selection just
assumes that changes are random. But when you consider survival, those
random stabs in the dark eventually led to a successful mutation: a design
that worked better than all the others because it resulted in a higher
chance of survival.
A teleological view would say that there was a design that would work
best, and evolution took random stabs in the dark until finally matching
what evolution had planned for humans as its course of evolution.
So if we are just as random as all the other animals in the world, why are
we not living more like they do--As apes and monkeys truly live in the
wild?
Damaeus
Dr. Acula
PS: I found this and it may be more useful for you to communicate with
it instead of writing your own sentences:
http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools/RandomSentence/RandomSentence.aspx
I got, "Any sordid spirit hardens underneath a scotch freak."
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> So if we are just as random as all the other animals in the world, why are
> we not living more like they do--As apes and monkeys truly live in the
> wild?
Why don't they live like each other?
Damaeus
Bruce Stephens <bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> posted:
Why don't we live more like one or the other, without computers and cars?
Why did we learn how to heat metal to make swords so much sooner than apes
did?
Damaeus
Ken Denny
>
> I got, "Any sordid spirit hardens underneath a scotch freak."
His posts might start making more sense.
backspace
There are ten bags of marbles. A non-probability sample or non-random
sample as defined on Wikipedia would be a human deciding which of the
bags he will use. One could also program a computer to make that
decision because the *intent* came from the programmer to en-act a non-
random or non-probability sample. Placing your hand inside the
specific bags say 2, 5 and nr.7 mixing them and extract a marble would
be a *probability sample* or a *selection at random* but not a *random
selection*.
Dr. Acula
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
>
> > ".....The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters,
> > assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28
> > characters will be random....."
>
> > Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a selection at random was
> > done, in the same way that if a person scrambling marbles in a bag and
> > taking one does a selection at random?
>
> Speaking of humans, the problem with that is that natural selection just
> assumes that changes are random. But when you consider survival, those
> random stabs in the dark eventually led to a successful mutation: a design
> that worked better than all the others because it resulted in a higher
> chance of survival.
It actually just means that 1) the mutations are functionally random
(i.e. we cannot predict where any given mutation will take place), and
B) Again, as far as we can tell the mutations are random in regard to
traits. You can postulate that they are teleological in nature but we
have no evidence for that. That would be something taken on faith I
suppose. I don't agree but it is a nominally free country. :)
> A teleological view would say that there was a design that would work
> best, and evolution took random stabs in the dark until finally matching
> what evolution had planned for humans as its course of evolution.
>
> So if we are just as random as all the other animals in the world, why are
> we not living more like they do--As apes and monkeys truly live in the
> wild?
Look up niche (or I will I guess):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
It wasn't that long ago that we did live "in the wild" of course (and
some people still do). Scare quotes are there because "in the wild" is
simply a matter of perspective, but I get what you mean. Why aren't we
running around naked, throwing feces at each other (aside from
politics)? Gotta run, more later maybe.
backspace
> There are ten bags of marbles. A non-probability sample or non-random
> sample as defined on Wikipedia would be a human deciding which of the
> bags he will use. One could also program a computer to make that
> decision because the *intent* came from the programmer to en-act a non-
> random or non-probability sample. Placing your hand inside the
> specific bags say 2, 5 and nr.7 mixing them and extract a marble would
> be a *probability sample* or a *selection at random* but not a *random
> selection*.
You extract a marble "at random" until you find the one with M and put
it aside. Then take the other bag until finding E... for "Me
thinks like a weasel".. Thus intent was involved, intent can't be
banished from this probability sampling process by writing a computer
program. The computer is simulating the algorithm that a person has
in his mind. The fatal flaw in the entire article on Wikipedia is the
term "random selection". It should be "selection at random" or
"probability sample".
Mike L
<http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-
argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin>
But it does become a rather less idle question if one thinks of it in
terms of infinitely small objects in an infinitely small space.
(Taking it as an idealized needle point rather than a pin's head.) If
we could get Backspace obsessed with this question, he'd probably
leave t.o. alone for years on end.
--
Mike.
David Hare-Scott
That's not going to happen because the only games he likes are word games,
facts and commonly used concepts get in the way of that.
David
Damaeus
"Dr. Acula" <jerr...@gmail.com> posted:
> On Apr 21, 2:50 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > Reading from news:talk.origins,
> > backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> posted:
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
> >
> > > ".....The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters,
> > > assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28
> > > characters will be random....."
> >
> > > Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a selection at random was
> > > done, in the same way that if a person scrambling marbles in a bag and
> > > taking one does a selection at random?
> >
> > Speaking of humans, the problem with that is that natural selection just
> > assumes that changes are random. But when you consider survival, those
> > random stabs in the dark eventually led to a successful mutation: a design
> > that worked better than all the others because it resulted in a higher
> > chance of survival.
>
> It actually just means that 1) the mutations are functionally random
> (i.e. we cannot predict where any given mutation will take place), and
> B) Again, as far as we can tell the mutations are random in regard to
> traits. You can postulate that they are teleological in nature but we
> have no evidence for that. That would be something taken on faith I
> suppose. I don't agree but it is a nominally free country. :)
I understand the idea that we could have turned out to be anything at all,
even something that looks like Hammerhead in Star Wars. But how much of
the young lust of gorilla sex is based on pheromones and how much is based
on finding such a sexy gorillaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I need a dirty woman"?
I can think of no good support for the aesthetics of the human body, nor
support for what brings people to conceive of art that idealizes the human
form to a degree that makes the real thing pale by comparison, without at
least making each of us a creator unto ourselves.
If chimps can be taught to communicate, and then we find that they have
nothing to say, I don't think we should ignore that /we/ *do* have
something to say, and we say it. But we imagine it first.
I don't think that our ability to idealize the human body in our
imaginations is a waste. I believe that this ability is there for a
reason. I know that evolution does not care one bit for our feelings
about evolution. So evolution should not be offended if we find a way to
one-up it and go our own way instead of falling prey to a force that did
not give our closest genetic relatives the ability to imagine themselves
as sexier chimps, nor the ability to communicate any interest of the sort
to us, even after we've taught them sign language.
> > A teleological view would say that there was a design that would work
> > best, and evolution took random stabs in the dark until finally matching
> > what evolution had planned for humans as its course of evolution.
> >
> > So if we are just as random as all the other animals in the world, why are
> > we not living more like they do--As apes and monkeys truly live in the
> > wild?
>
> Look up niche (or I will I guess):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
>
> It wasn't that long ago that we did live "in the wild" of course (and
> some people still do). Scare quotes are there because "in the wild" is
> simply a matter of perspective, but I get what you mean. Why aren't we
> running around naked, throwing feces at each other (aside from
> politics)? Gotta run, more later maybe.
Yeah, that's about it. Essentially we still are apes. Some have just
become shrewd enough to get into positions of political power so they can
order others into the battlefield act like gorillas on their behalf, while
the ones who sent them there get to sit comfortably and think like
gorillas.
Damaeus
Dr. Acula
Which are synonymous. Dummy.
backspace
> sample as defined on Wikipedia would be a human deciding which of the
> bags he will use. One could also program a computer to make that
> decision because the *intent* came from the programmer to en-act a non-
> random or non-probability sample. Placing your hand inside the
> specific bags say 2, 5 and nr.7 mixing them and extract a marble would
> be a *probability sample* or a *selection at random* but not a *random
> selection*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
"...Dawkins broached several of these issues himself in "The Blind
Watchmaker," and has also responded to these criticisms by pointing
out that the program was never intended to model biological evolution
accurately, and that he very specifically described it as an
artificial selection process from the outset, as the citation above
shows. It was only meant to demonstrate the power of cumulative
selection as compared to random selection, and show the complete
unrealism of the popular notion of natural selection as "monkeys
pounding on typewriters"...."
"......meant to demonstrate cumulative selection as compared to random
selection........"
I place my hand into a bag of marbles and do a random selection by
taking one out. We get the intent with the sentence, but in the highly
technical world of math it is incorrect, to be exact we must use exact
and not colloquial language. The correct usage is " a selection at
random was done". "random selection" as used in the Weasel program
discussion actually means "purposeless no intent , no consciousness
selection" which is a contradiction because a "selection" as we use it
in discussing the Weasel program is always a conscious decision. Now
some would say that *selection" doesn't always mean consciousness ,
which is correct but in 99% of cases it does mean consciousness. If
your intent isn't consciousness with "selection" in the Weasel program
then don't use the word.
We could use selection as follows:
After the storm there was a selection of rocks left on the mountain.
- no intent. --- (Example A)
After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks they made a
fire - intent. -- (Example B)
The confusion over the weasel program is because it isn't clear what
the intent is with the words random and selection as used by all
participants in the debate and the oxymoron that is formed with
"random selection" - there is no such as a random selection if we use
the word *selection* in the context of (Example B).
backspace
> The confusion over the weasel program is because it isn't clear what
> the intent is with the words random and selection as used by all
> participants in the debate and the oxymoron that is formed with
> "random selection" - there is no such as a random selection if we use
> the word *selection* in the context of (Example B).
The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
"purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
themselves and society mentally ill in the process.
prig...@aol.com
> Cecil Adams is pretty good on this one. If interested, see:
> <http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-
> argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin>
>
> But it does become a rather less idle question if one thinks of it in
> terms of infinitely small objects in an infinitely small space.
> (Taking it as an idealized needle point rather than a pin's head.)
There's the rub. If there are no well-defined parameters and direct
observation of action and results is not possible, any late-comer can
throw in another clever twist and derail the whole thing.
.... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Doug Chandler
Doug Chandler
Martin Andersen
model the evolution of a specific sentence, but show that change under a
selection criteria occurs. ANY selection criteria.
The criteria could have been sentence length, ratio of consonants vs
vowels or any number of different things.
> To discard "Mary had a little lamb", because it does not, exactly, fit the
> target set by the experimenter, is fraudulent.
>
No.
Since the experiment doesn't define fitness as "any proper English
sentence". By the same logic it shouldn't discard sentences that are
proper German, reverse French, binary xor'ed Swahili or palindroms.
They simply aren't in the set of "whatever works" in the abstract world
of the weasel programs. Here, "whatever works" just happens to be one
sentence.
Martin Andersen
brought about by natural selection and chance, enabling us to expand on
the knowledge of past generations.
Next.
wf3h
>
> The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> themselves and society mentally ill in the process.
natural selection does not have a 'purpose'. to creationists, who see
teleology literally under every rock, such an idea is
incomprehensible. their whole worldview is built on teleology. god's
purpose lives in every atom, every ant, every star he 'created'. thus
no natural laws are needed at all. and that's why creationism made NO
progress in explaining nature for 2000 years. it's why no scientists
use creationism.
natural selection is testable. that's why it's scientific. it can be
evaluted in the lab.
creationism, because it's inevitably wed to teleology, can not reason
its way out of a wet paper bag. it comes to the table trying to prove
what it takes as a premise. that's why it fails. that's why it's
useless. its major premise is wrong. all the rest is commentary.
Dr. Acula
Nether the word 'random' nor 'selection' are even close the the words
'purposeless' or 'purpose.' As you've been shown 'random selection' s
used all of the time. Go take a statistics course.
Damaeus
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> posted:
Yes, the obvious, of course. And as that knowledge and culture built up
around us, it resulted in our ability to absorb the knowledge and wisdom
recorded by past generations instead of having to figure it out ourselves.
If immortality is in our future, I think the evidence clearly shows that
humans will attain this state before gorillas and chimps do.
Damaeus
backspace
> > The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> > "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> > the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> > contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> > traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> > same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> > themselves and society mentally ill in the process.
> natural selection is testable. that's why it's scientific. it can be
> evaluted in the lab.
Prof. Fodor who wrote the article "Why pigs don't have wings" asked
the following:
"....What then is the intended meaning of a natural selection? The
question is wide open as of this writing...."
What was wrong with the article is that he assumed DArwin used natural
selection as an effect, while darwin invoked it as a cause. Bob if
Fodor doesn't know what a natural selection is how do you?
backspace
> > The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> > "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> > the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> > contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> > traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> > same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> > themselves and society mentally ill in the process.
> Nether the word 'random' nor 'selection' are even close the the words
> 'purposeless' or 'purpose.' As you've been shown 'random selection' s
> used all of the time. Go take a statistics course.
What does random mean?
Occidental
"Statistical randomness, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A numeric sequence is said to be statistically random when it contains
no recognizable patterns or regularities; sequences such as the
results of an ideal die roll, or the digits of π exhibit statistical
randomness."
At a certain point in the execution of the Weasel algorithm, the more
successful strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that
simulates biological descent. Do you understand how this process
works, ie could you implement it yourself in an easy-to-use
programming language? Or explain to a programmer how he should do it?
wf3h
i don't care what he does or doesn't know. it's irrelevant.
i know what natural selection is because evolutionary biologists have
been very competent in explaining to this chemist:
1. what the mechanism of natural selection is
2. how it is tested
3. what the results are
scientists do that. it's how we work
now, then, when you can do the same for CREATIONISM, by all means, do
so. so far in 2000 years you guys have failed.
backspace
> On Apr 22, 2:32 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > natural selection is testable. that's why it's scientific. it can be
> > > evaluted in the lab.
>
> > Prof. Fodor who wrote the article "Why pigs don't have wings" asked
> > the following:
> > "....What then is the intended meaning of a natural selection? The
> > question is wide open as of this writing...."
> > What was wrong with the article is that he assumed DArwin used natural
> > selection as an effect, while darwin invoked it as a cause. Bob if
> > Fodor doesn't know what a natural selection is how do you?
>
> i don't care what he does or doesn't know. it's irrelevant.
>
> i know what natural selection is because evolutionary biologists have
> been very competent in explaining to this chemist:
>
> 1. what the mechanism of natural selection is
> 2. how it is tested
> 3. what the results are
backspace
> After the storm there was a selection of rocks left on the mountain.
> - no intent. --- (Example A)
> After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks they made a
> fire - intent. -- (Example B)
> The confusion over the weasel program is because it isn't clear what
> the intent is with the words random and selection as used by all
> participants in the debate and the oxymoron that is formed with
> "random selection" - there is no such as a random selection if we use
> the word *selection* in the context of (Example B).
But if "selection" is used in the context of Example A then "random
selection" is a tautology because a tautology is also defined as
*double speak* , it would be "random non-intent", random implies non-
intent. Thus I motivate why we in technical formal discussions must
always use "selection" to imply motive, volition and intent.
Dr. Acula
No, its not a tautology because *selection* is not *synonymous* with
"non-intent."
Dr. Acula
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random
Notice that it uses 'random selection' as an example.
Dr. Acula
Remember? I already posted an example outlining this and you still
haven't addressed the genetics:
Example: I predict that if a given environment changes to a
significant degree (I would have to operationalize that bit as well as
some others) that genes within a given population of organisms that
give them an advantage in reproduction will spread throughout the
population (e.g. a gene for smaller beak size to deal better with
smaller seeds as seen with the finch example below). This can easily
be refuted if the observations do not match the hypothesis (i.e. if
the population remains in a state of genetic stasis despite
environmental change and if it has no affect on reproduction).
It has though been observed in real time in populations of bacteria
(e.g. antibiotic resistance, and citrase production in E. coli) as
well as in larger creatures such as Darwin's Finches. You can view
examples such as these and see that the hypothesis is correct:
https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060713_darwin_finch.html
What you need to do is conduct your own experiments and come up with
results that refute this or refute the observations of others. Your
word games (or really your inability to understand words) are not
enough. That is how we do science, bitch.
wf3h
differential reproduction through natural selection
> 2. how it is tested
> What is tested?
differential reproduction through natural selection
> > 3. what the results are
>
> What are the results ?-
the results show environmental factors can cause changes in
populations with time
now, then...after 2000 years...where's the similar results from
creationism
BUT...i KNOW this is the LAST i will hear from YOU.....creationists
NEVER answer questions..
bye bye!!
wf3h
doublespeak is something like 'god did it is science'... AKA
creationism...
backspace
Pragmatics overrides semantics.
richar...@gmail.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
>
> ".....The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters,
> assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28
> characters will be random....."
>
> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a selection at random was
> done, in the same way that if a person scrambling marbles in a bag and
> taking one does a selection at random?
Ah, more word games.
RS
backspace
> The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> themselves and society mentally ill in the process.
"....It was only meant to demonstrate the power of cumulative
selection as compared to random selection, and show the complete
unrealism of the popular notion of natural selection as "monkeys
pounding on typewriters".........."
In what context is Dawkins using "cumulative" - A or B?
A) There was an accumulation of sand over time on the mountain
B) There was an accumulation of fish by the fishermen.
If A then "purposeless purpose" which is like believing a traffic
light can be green and red at the same time.
If B then "purposive purpose" which is double speak and a tautological
proposition ,hence a fallacy.
backspace
> > > 3. what the results are
> > What are the results ?-
> the results show environmental factors can cause changes in
> populations with time
The environment doesn't cause anything, organisms respond to the
environment, you are confusing the cause with the effect.
wf3h
and science overrides creationism. that's why creationism is believed
only by preachers and lawyers
wf3h
a response is called an 'effect'.
you're confused because you're a creationist and it's finally dawning
on you how useless your ideas really are.
Dr. Acula
The environment causes all sorts of things.
Dr. Acula
Even if that were true, it does not apply in this case as those words
are never synonymous. Ever. You can't make up private definitions of
words. Get a dictionary.
Dr. Acula
> On Apr 22, 2:58 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> > "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> > the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> > contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> > traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> > same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> > themselves and society mentally ill in the process.
>
> "....It was only meant to demonstrate the power of cumulative
> selection as compared to random selection, and show the complete
> unrealism of the popular notion of natural selection as "monkeys
> pounding on typewriters".........."
>
> In what context is Dawkins using "cumulative" - A or B?
> A) There was an accumulation of sand over time on the mountain
> B) There was an accumulation of fish by the fishermen.
Either one will do as they're the same word which basically means
"growth by addition."
> If A then "purposeless purpose" which is like believing a traffic
> light can be green and red at the same time.
No one one said anything about purpose.
> If B then "purposive purpose" which is double speak and a tautological
> proposition ,hence a fallacy.
Again, no one said anything about purpose. You have to address the
actual evidence, not the words used to describe the evidence. In this
case you should describe the actual program and what it does and then
explain why you seem to think its wrong. This should be done without
reverting to sophomoric word games.
backspace
> > If A then "purposeless purpose" which is like believing a traffic
> > light can be green and red at the same time.
>
> No one one said anything about purpose.
>
> > If B then "purposive purpose" which is double speak and a tautological
> > proposition ,hence a fallacy.
> Again, no one said anything about purpose. You have to address the
> actual evidence, not the words used to describe the evidence. In this
> case you should describe the actual program and what it does and then
> explain why you seem to think its wrong. This should be done without
> reverting to sophomoric word games.
The weasel program is being addressed by these thought experiments. I
am asking you to reverse the whole thing instead of simulating with a
computer "me thinks ....." rather take the computer program as written
in C and simulate it with a number or bags each marked M , E, T, H
etc... in physical space and not computer space. Inside the bag are
ten marbles with only one marked M, E, T respectively for each bag.
Then do a "selection at random" or probability selection by placing
your hand inside and scrambling the marbles. This whole thought
experiment is being confused because people are insisting on using a
computer to do it. Things are much more clarified if done in real life
by rather simulating what the C , Pascal or Python program is doing.
You can't call the "probability selection" or "selection at random" a
random selection, because we are dealing with exact terms not
colloquial expressions.
backspace
> > > No, its not a tautology because *selection* is not *synonymous* with
> > > "non-intent."
>
> > Pragmatics overrides semantics.
>
> Even if that were true, it does not apply in this case as those words
> are never synonymous. Ever. You can't make up private definitions of
> words. Get a dictionary.
I think we are having our lines crossed : For the record "selection"
as used in 99% of cases means "intent" at the semantic level. But
because of the loopholes in English , we insist that pragmatics always
overrides semantics, this isn't Greek. In Greek Eros never ever means
AGape, in English what does Love mean?
Occidental
> The weasel program is being addressed by these thought experiments. I
> am asking you to reverse the whole thing instead of simulating with a
> computer "me thinks ....." rather take the computer program as written
> in C and simulate it with a number or bags each marked M , E, T, H
> etc... in physical space and not computer space. Inside the bag are
> ten marbles with only one marked M, E, T respectively for each bag.
> Then do a "selection at random" or probability selection by placing
> your hand inside and scrambling the marbles. This whole thought
> experiment is being confused because people are insisting on using a
> computer to do it. Things are much more clarified if done in real life
> by rather simulating what the C , Pascal or Python program is doing.
If this is a clarification I dread to think what an obfuscation would
look like.
Dr. Acula
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
Pragmatics is actually a subunit of semantics. All languages have
these "loophole" that you speak of, that is, we all use metaphor.
Especially when we are unaware of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_metaphor
http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/deadmetterm.htm
Dr. Acula
I have no idea why you think this would be helpful. If we did it by
hand we would similar results. Thats obvious.
> You can't call the "probability selection" or "selection at random" a
> random selection, because we are dealing with exact terms not
> colloquial expressions.
All three of those things are synonymous (or more accurately a
"selection at random" and "random selection" are subsets of
"probability selection"). Changing the word order has absolutely no
affect on the intended meaning. They both mean that 1) there is no
pattern in regards to the outcome of the selection and 2) we cannot
predict the next selection in the sequence. "Random selection" is not
a colloquial expression. If it were I don't think it would be the most
often used term when discussing statistics, do you? I've never heard
anyone say 'selection at random' when discussing it in a technical
sense. It is you who seems to prefer the more colloquial "selection at
random."
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> The environment doesn't cause anything, organisms respond to the
> environment, you are confusing the cause with the effect.
That's as close to perfect as I can reasonably expect to see here.
Clause 1: Nonsensical statement.
Clause 2: Inadvertent refutation of nonsensical statement.
Clause 3: Source of confusion correctly identified but misattributed.
At their best, most creationists here can rarely sustain one error per
sentence. You're not breaking a sweat while managing one error per
clause. You truly are a testament to what years of dedication to not-
reading and not-thinking can accomplish.
Well done, sir.
backspace
> If this is a clarification I dread to think what an obfuscation would
> look like.
Harshman and I had a discussion about the same issue:
backspace wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
> What would a random selection process look like?
Harshman replies:
Put a bunch of marbles in a bag. Pick one out without looking at it.
That's a random selection. Or watch them pick the lotto numbers on TV
some time. Same thing.
Now put a bunch of marbles in a bag, some black, some white. Take one
out at random. If it's white, crush it with a hammer. If it's black,
put
it back and add another black marble to the bag too. How long before
all
the marbles are black?
backspace
> > You can't call the "probability selection" or "selection at random" a
> > random selection, because we are dealing with exact terms not
> > colloquial expressions.
> All three of those things are synonymous (or more accurately a
> "selection at random" and "random selection" are subsets of
> "probability selection"). Changing the word order has absolutely no
> affect on the intended meaning.
> 1) there is no pattern in regards to the outcome of the selection
There is no pattern in regards to the conscious act of making a
probability sample.
backspace
> > I think we are having our lines crossed : For the record "selection"
> > as used in 99% of cases means "intent" at the semantic level. But
> > because of the loopholes in English , we insist that pragmatics always
> > overrides semantics, this isn't Greek. In Greek Eros never ever means
> > AGape, in English what does Love mean?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
>
> Pragmatics is actually a subunit of semantics.
1) Alphabet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet
2) Grammar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar
3) Semantics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
4) Pragmatics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
5) World view, agenda, belief system. I am YEC with a fundamentalist
YEC agenda. From this perspective I view the world. Other are Atheist
believing their mind consists of illusions, inventing their own
realities and thus we can't believe a word they say.
# DNA Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons - letters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome - words
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon - sentences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon - paragraphs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome - chapters
Occidental
> > If this is a clarification I dread to think what an obfuscation would
> > look like.
On Apr 23, 3:57 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Herehttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/6b...
>
> Harshman and I had a discussion about the same issue:
At a certain point in the execution of the Weasel algorithm, the more
successful strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that
simulates biological descent - each offspring is similar to the parent
but differs at one or more positions.
Suppose, at a certain point in the process, a given parent string is
(borrowing from wikipedia)
MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
This string will get a score of 20 out of 28 because it differs from
the target (METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL) at 8 places. How would you
form an offspring string from this string? Clue - you don't use 28 or
whatever bags of balls.
Dr. Acula
Pardon?
Dr. Acula
> On Apr 23, 8:40 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:> > I think we are having our lines crossed : For the record "selection"
> > > as used in 99% of cases means "intent" at the semantic level. But
> > > because of the loopholes in English , we insist that pragmatics always
> > > overrides semantics, this isn't Greek. In Greek Eros never ever means
> > > AGape, in English what does Love mean?
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
>
> > Pragmatics is actually a subunit of semantics.
>
> Nope, in order:
> 1) Alphabet -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet
> 2) Grammar -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar
> 3) Semantics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
> 5) World view, agenda, belief system. I am YEC with a fundamentalist
> YEC agenda. From this perspective I view the world. Other are Atheist
> believing their mind consists of illusions, inventing their own
> realities and thus we can't believe a word they say.
>
> # DNA Languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons- lettershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome- wordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon- sentenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon- paragraphshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome- chapters
Just pretend I marked everything you said down as wrong. I don't have
time to deal with each aspect of your insanity.
backspace
> > There is no pattern in regards to the conscious act of making a
> > probability sample.
You know Woland I took a long hard look at that sentence and have no
idea how that managed to get transmitted over cyberspace.... something
went wrong while typing it was a pending post part of a larger write
up. Thus please just ignore it.... I apologize because it makes no
sense as written.
backspace
> > Nope, in order:
> > 1) Alphabet -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet
> > 2) Grammar -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar
> > 3) Semantics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
> > 4) Pragmatics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
> > 5) World view, agenda, belief system. I am YEC with a fundamentalist
> > YEC agenda. From this perspective I view the world. Other are Atheist
> > believing their mind consists of illusions, inventing their own
> > realities and thus we can't believe a word they say.
>
> > # DNA Languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons-lettershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon-sentenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon-paragraphshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome-chapters
> Just pretend I marked everything you said down as wrong. I don't have
> time to deal with each aspect of your insanity.
Perhaps you should for the sake of the lurkers, this thread is at nr.1
out of 24600 Google hits:
http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&as_q=weasel+random+selection&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
Burkhard
> On Apr 22, 7:14 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> > > "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> > > the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> > > contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> > > traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> > > same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> > > themselves and society mentally ill in the process.
> > 'purposeless' or 'purpose.' As you've been shown 'random selection' s
> > used all of the time. Go take a statistics course.
>
> What does random mean?
Not following a describable deterministic pattern, but a probability
distribution
backspace
> > What does random mean?
> Not following a describable deterministic pattern, but a probability
> distribution
Well actually from a pure math point of view nobody knows what
randomness is. As one professor put it: " .... We know what randomness
isn't , we don't know what it is...." See these articles by Prof.
Robert Herrmann PHD ,retired tenured professor. He was a committed
atheist but become a YEC fundamentalist after reading just the book of
Matthew.
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html
Especially this book is fascinating:
# 16. (G) Your Endangered Mind: The Great Scientific Deception,
Christian Version. Many members of the scientific community have tried
frantically to prevent you from reading this very important book. This
book as well as the one below contains material that is different from
that which appears in "Science Declares Our Universe IS Intelligently
Designed."
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/gsa.htm
# 17. (G) Your Endangered Mind: The Great Scientific Deception,
Original Secular Version.
The basic personal conclusions established by the MA-model apply to
every intelligent life form within the universe. The physical
applications are independent from any other scientific theory. To show
this, I present the original slightly more detailed secular version
written in HTML and presented in one compressed zip file with images.
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/zsgs.zip
Burkhard
> On Apr 24, 1:16 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > What does random mean?
> > Not following a describable deterministic pattern, but a probability
> > distribution
>
> Well actually from a pure math point of view nobody knows what
> randomness is.
Well, actually, from apure mathpoint of view, we know quite well - I
gave you the definition.
As one professor put it: " .... We know what randomness
> isn't , we don't know what it is...."
My guess is that he refers to the fact that it is often impossible to
decide if a given sequence is truly random. That does not mean we have
problems with the concept, just that the application of the concept to
specific examples is tricky - two rather different things. In this
sense, randomness is like many other empirical scientific concepts -
disproving randomness (falsification) is typically easier than proving
randomness (verification)
wf3h
> On Apr 24, 1:16 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > What does random mean?
> > Not following a describable deterministic pattern, but a probability
> > distribution
>
> Well actually from a pure math point of view nobody knows what
> randomness is. As one professor put it: " .... We know what randomness
> isn't , we don't know what it is...." See these articles by Prof.
> Robert Herrmann PHD ,retired tenured professor. He was a committed
> atheist but become a YEC fundamentalist after reading just the book of
> Especially this book is fascinating:
it's funny reading what creationists consider science. dr. hermann has
apparently developed theories of
-relativity
-the origins of the universe
-alternatives to evolution
gee. all this from 1 person. darwin, einstein and newton in 1 guy.
>
> # 16. (G) Your Endangered Mind: The Great Scientific Deception,
> Christian Version. Many members of the scientific community have tried
> frantically to prevent you from reading this very important book.
that's true. we get together ever samhain and decide how we are going
to force people not to read books. this is so well hidden that only
creationists know about it
creationism apparently isn't quite useless. it generates ALOT of
paranoia, it seems.
Dr. Acula
> On Apr 23, 11:27 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nope, in order:
> > > 1) Alphabet -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet
> > > 2) Grammar -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar
> > > 3) Semantics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
> > > 4) Pragmatics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
> > > 5) World view, agenda, belief system. I am YEC with a fundamentalist
> > > YEC agenda. From this perspective I view the world. Other are Atheist
> > > believing their mind consists of illusions, inventing their own
> > > realities and thus we can't believe a word they say.
>
> > Just pretend I marked everything you said down as wrong. I don't have
> > time to deal with each aspect of your insanity.
>
> Perhaps you should for the sake of the lurkers, this thread is at nr.1
And the lurkers already know you're insane.
Dr. Acula
> On Apr 23, 8:40 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:> > I think we are having our lines crossed : For the record "selection"
> > > as used in 99% of cases means "intent" at the semantic level. But
> > > because of the loopholes in English , we insist that pragmatics always
> > > overrides semantics, this isn't Greek. In Greek Eros never ever means
> > > AGape, in English what does Love mean?
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
>
> > Pragmatics is actually a subunit of semantics.
>
> Nope, in order:
Uh, yes: "The formal study of semantics has many subfields, including
proxemics, lexicology, syntax pragmatics, etymology and others,
although semantics in and of itself is a well-defined field in its own
right, often with synthetic properties." From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic
it has a reference, though any good linguistics book will tell you the
same.
> 1) Alphabet -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet
irrelevant. An alphabet simply represents the possible sounds (some)
in a given language.
> 2) Grammar -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar
> 3) Semantics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
> 4) Pragmatics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
All of these things work together. There is no hierarchy. Again take a
linguistics course or get some text books.
> 5) World view, agenda, belief system. I am YEC with a fundamentalist
> YEC agenda. From this perspective I view the world. Other are Atheist
> believing their mind consists of illusions, inventing their own
> realities and thus we can't believe a word they say.
And some of us are Jews (like me), We are not literalists, Probably
because we're not dumb.though I fail to see how this is relevant. Did
you know that it doesn't say anything about the age of the earth in
the bible?
> # DNA Languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons- lettershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome- wordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon- sentenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon- paragraphshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome- chapters
if it helps you to understand the underlying mechanisms of life then
that's cool, but taking it literally ts not even wrong.
backspace
> At a certain point in the execution of the Weasel algorithm, the more
> successful strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that
> works, ie could you implement it yourself in an easy-to-use
> programming language? Or explain to a programmer how he should do it?
Biological means study of life so lets rephrase a bit:
=== rephrase ===
>........ strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that simulates descent via Life.
> Do you understand how this process works, ie could you implement it yourself in an easy-to-use programming language?
Nope, because you haven't define for me what Life is. Read
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_meaning_of_life/?page=1 by
Cleland to formulate a proper response. You are assuming that "Life"
is a materialistic process, Life is Jesus Christ who is Language and
keeps all the atoms together, matter is mostly empty space, if
Language didn't keep it together it would explode. I know this by
faith, my faith is the evidence because faith is the evidence of
things not seen. Now the counter to this is that my view isn't
"scientific" but nobody can tell me what it means to be scientific, it
also like Life isn't defined.
This is why these debates are going nowhere because Life within
materialism as Prof.Cleland in the Seedmagazine article reasoned isn't
defined.
wf3h
> On Apr 22, 8:58 pm, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > At a certain point in the execution of the Weasel algorithm, the more
> > successful strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that
> > simulates biological descent. Do you understand how this process
> > works, ie could you implement it yourself in an easy-to-use
> > programming language? Or explain to a programmer how he should do it?
>
> Biological means study of life so lets rephrase a bit:
>
> === rephrase ===
>
> >........ strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that simulates descent via Life.
> > Do you understand how this process works, ie could you implement it yourself in an easy-to-use programming language?
>
> Nope, because you haven't define for me what Life is. Readhttp://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_meaning_of_life/?page=1by
> Cleland to formulate a proper response. You are assuming that "Life"
> is a materialistic process, Life is Jesus Christ who is Language
if life is jesus christ, why didn't he tell us how to cure disease
like science does?
you creationists would have us go back to the 3rd century. creationism
is SO useless.
and
> keeps all the atoms together, matter is mostly empty space,
creationism didn't discover atoms. science did. creationism didn't
discover atoms are empty space. science did. even creationists cant
talk about creationism without bringing up science
is there any better indication that creationism is useless....
if
> Language didn't keep it together it would explode. I know this by
> faith, my faith is the evidence because faith is the evidence of
> things not seen. Now the counter to this is that my view isn't
> "scientific" but nobody can tell me what it means to be scientific, it
> also like Life isn't defined.
nothing is defined. jesus is not defined. if science cant tell us
what life is, jesus failed to do so as well. the difference is that we
have computers to discuss this because of science. jesus isn't from
IBM.
>
> This is why these debates are going nowhere because Life within
> materialism as Prof.Cleland in the Seedmagazine article reasoned isn't
> defined.
gee. and yet you have a computer, based on science....not jesus
go figure
Dr. Acula
Again, you commit the Loki's Wager fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wagerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager
lease address the genetic evidence as discussed n other threads. You
can't disprove repeated observations and confirmations with your stud
word games.
backspace
"...Apart from its use as a technical term in logic, equivocation can
also mean the use of language that is ambiguous, i.e. equally
susceptible of being understood in two different ways. There is
usually a strong connotation that the ambiguity is being used with
intention to deceive...."
Again I ask "random selection" or "selection at random" ? Who is
engaging in deceit .... The atheist or the theist....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
"....Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy.
It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense
(by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It
is often confused with amphiboly; however, equivocation is ambiguity
arising from the misleading use of a word and amphiboly is ambiguity
arising from misleading use of punctuation or syntax...."
backspace
> > Nope, because you haven't define for me what Life is. Readhttp://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_meaning_of_life/?page=1by
> > Cleland to formulate a proper response. You are assuming that "Life"
> > is a materialistic process, Life is Jesus Christ who is Language
>
> if life is jesus christ, why didn't he tell us how to cure disease
> like science does?
Mr.Science doesn't cure anything, he doesn't exist - what do you mean
by science?
wf3h
what do you mean by 'jesus christ is life' if you cant define either
jesus OR life?
IOW you posted a meaningless post. typical for a creationist.
wf3h
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphiboly
> "...Apart from its use as a technical term in logic, equivocation can
> also mean the use of language that is ambiguous, i.e. equally
> susceptible of being understood in two different ways. There is
> usually a strong connotation that the ambiguity is being used with
> intention to deceive...."
>
> Again I ask "random selection" or "selection at random" ? Who is
> engaging in deceit .... The atheist or the theist....
>
obviously the creationist is lying. for 2000 years creationism said it
was the explanation of nature.
and for 2000 years there was no scientific progress at all. only when
science was invented did nature start to yield its secrets.
creationism is useless. backspace is stuck in an orgy of dictionary
sophisty masturbating himself to death while the scientific world
passes him by
backspace
> > Again I ask "random selection" or "selection at random" ? Who is
> > engaging in deceit .... The atheist or the theist....
>
> obviously the creationist is lying. for 2000 years creationism said it
> was the explanation of nature.
Mr.Creationism didn't say anything. Maxwell was a YEC and gave us
Maxwells equations. Darwin gave us this tautology: The dinosaurs are
dead because they were less improved. This tautological thinking has
resulted in ignorant people voting for the Democrats who are bribed by
the Arabs to squash oil exploration and thus I have to pay R7.5 for
petrol.
> and for 2000 years there was no scientific progress at all. only when
> science was invented did nature start to yield its secrets.
For 2000 years the Roman Whore held mankind in slavery .... I
agree ....
wf3h
> On Apr 26, 12:27 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > Again I ask "random selection" or "selection at random" ? Who is
> > > engaging in deceit .... The atheist or the theist....
>
> > obviously the creationist is lying. for 2000 years creationism said it
> > was the explanation of nature.
>
> Mr.Creationism didn't say anything.
well, for once, the creationist is right. 'mr creationism' says
nothing. that's its problem. it SAYS it says something. but it
actually says NOTHING. backspace has put, inadvertently, his finger on
the problem with creationism: it is the theology of nothing
masquerading as something.
in a few words he's said more about the failure of creationism as an
explanation of the world than all of his compatriots put together.
Maxwell was a YEC and gave us
> Maxwells equations.
and he didn't use creationism. again you are right. creationism is
uselss
Darwin gave us this tautology: The dinosaurs are
> dead because they were less improved.
you don't know what darwin said or didn't say. you offer nothing to
back up your assertion
This tautological thinking has
> resulted in ignorant people voting for the Democrats who are bribed by
> the Arabs to squash oil exploration and thus I have to pay R7.5 for
> petrol.
you don't know what a tautology is, and wave the word around like a
talisman to protect you from science. creationism is the religion of
ignorance. it replaces the paraclete with the spirit of ignorance,
elevating ignorance to the status of a god.
>
> > and for 2000 years there was no scientific progress at all. only when
> > science was invented did nature start to yield its secrets.
>
> For 2000 years the Roman Whore held mankind in slavery .... I
> agree ....
christianity was a slave owner's religion. every single slave owner in
the western world was a creationist.
thanks again for your post. few have done so much to show how useless
creationism is.
TomS
<23e82959-c4f9-4dd6...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
>
>On Apr 26, 6:50=A0am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 26, 12:27=A0pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Again I ask "random selection" or "selection at random" =A0? =A0Who i=
>s
>> > > engaging in deceit .... The atheist or the theist....
>>
>> > obviously the creationist is lying. for 2000 years creationism said it
>> > was the explanation of nature.
>>
>
>well, for once, the creationist is right. 'mr creationism' says
>nothing. that's its problem. it SAYS it says something. but it
>actually says NOTHING. backspace has put, inadvertently, his finger on
>the problem with creationism: it is the theology of nothing
>masquerading as something.
Herbert Spencer, in "The Developmen Hypothesis" of 1852, wrote:
"This is one of the many cases in which men do not really believe, but
rather _believe they believe_. It is not that they can truly conceive
ten millions of special creations to have taken place, but that they
_think they can do so_. A little careful introspection will show them
that they have never yet realized to themselves the creation of even
one species."
(Italics in original)
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Damaeus
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> posted:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphiboly
> "...Apart from its use as a technical term in logic, equivocation can
> also mean the use of language that is ambiguous, i.e. equally
> susceptible of being understood in two different ways. There is
> usually a strong connotation that the ambiguity is being used with
> intention to deceive...."
>
> Again I ask "random selection" or "selection at random" ? Who is
> engaging in deceit .... The atheist or the theist....
I'd say selection at random. With selection at random, you only have so
many ways you can change. There are only so many genes that can chain
without having someone turn out as a mermaid or some other kind of
chimeric combination.
Damaeus
--
Well, I might as well try it full-time, just for the fun of it, if
nothing else. I'll be changing my regular posting address to Satan
soon. Just a little social experiment. Maybe I'll set up a web
page to provide links to all my identities so people can check me
out and see that I'm not an asshole here to destroy the universe,
but to bring it to life so we can all live and play forever in a fun
universe of really big toys for boys who deserve it for making it
all this way.
Damaeus
wf3h <wf...@vsswireless.net> posted:
> On Apr 25, 7:16 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 8:58 pm, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > At a certain point in the execution of the Weasel algorithm, the more
> > > successful strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that
> > > simulates biological descent. Do you understand how this process
> > > works, ie could you implement it yourself in an easy-to-use
> > > programming language? Or explain to a programmer how he should do it?
> >
> > Biological means study of life so lets rephrase a bit:
> >
> > === rephrase ===
> >
> > ........ strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that
> > simulates descent via Life. Do you understand how this process
> > works, ie could you implement it yourself in an easy-to-use
> > programming language?
> >
> > Nope, because you haven't define for me what Life is.
> > Readhttp://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_meaning_of_life/?page=1by
> > Cleland to formulate a proper response. You are assuming that "Life"
> > is a materialistic process, Life is Jesus Christ who is Language
>
> if life is jesus christ, why didn't he tell us how to cure disease
> like science does?
Because the expansion of the universe and the superstition of That Old
Time Religion prevents it. If you believe you need a savior to heal you,
then you do. But if we're all going to be immortal, it would be something
we would all learn to do. Jesus, himself, said that one day we would do
greater things than he did. I dunno what all he did. I just have the
stories to go by, just like everyone else. I would assume that not every
little thing he did was recorded. He might have been walking around like
a wizard, flinging magic left and right, just as a matter of his presence,
that people just wrote down the things he did which were to them of
particular grandness, such as raining fish from the sky, turning water to
wine, and bringing the dead back to life. Yet it's written that he said
one day people would do greater things "than I have done". I wonder if
that means he was not always allowed to do what he wanted, due to the
wisdom of the plan. Like, maybe it was fine to heal the sick, affirm the
faith of the believers, rebuke and correct, I suppose, as the story goes,
though I've never been much of a rebuker or corrector of people in this
life. I mostly try to fit in with what everyone else wants to do as best
I can. Today I'm very much a comedian, but if I actually lived as "Jesus"
or something...I can't imagine myself turning over the tables of money
changers. I feel like this body has done some thing during blackouts that
would be out of character for me, so if something like turning over tables
and stomping around like a gorilla ever happened, maybe I was blacked out
then, too. I have seen myself as a fun-loving stomping boy-gorilla,
correcting people correctly, but in my search to find a more discrete way
to do this, I've had to envisage several scenarios to get some idea of how
to proceed.
> you creationists would have us go back to the 3rd century. creationism
> is SO useless.
>
> and
> > keeps all the atoms together, matter is mostly empty space,
>
> creationism didn't discover atoms. science did. creationism didn't
> discover atoms are empty space. science did. even creationists cant
> talk about creationism without bringing up science
If the creator created atoms, he'd be holding them together, and would
have possessed them long before humans ever came along to discover them
using the tools of science. That atoms were already here when we evolved
to find them means that we don't know their deepest origins, but we can
use science to try to answer the questions we know to ask.
> is there any better indication that creationism is useless....
>
> > if Language didn't keep it together it would explode. I know this by
> > faith, my faith is the evidence because faith is the evidence of
> > things not seen. Now the counter to this is that my view isn't
> > "scientific" but nobody can tell me what it means to be scientific, it
> > also like Life isn't defined.
>
> nothing is defined. jesus is not defined. if science cant tell us
> what life is, jesus failed to do so as well.
Or it wasn't written down, or was lost, or mistranslated, or burned in
Alexandria or Nazi Germany. That the message is distorted doesn't mean
that something wonderful wasn't said and demonstrated all those years ago.
Whatever event that was has affected the world for 2,000 years. Isn't
that quite a bit longer than the nuclear winter caused by a meteorite
impact that is a not an extinction event, but just causes a nuclear winter
for one growing season? Eventually enough precipitation would wash all
the particulates out of the sky that have not settled to the ground,
cleaning things up pretty quickly.
> the difference is that we have computers to discuss this because of
> science. jesus isn't from IBM.
But if Jesus is alive in these days, he'd know about IBM and would most
likely have use of the technology. -,- Maybe he posts on usenet somewhere
and nobody knows who he is, but he does know the power of words to reshape
ideas in peoples' minds.
> > This is why these debates are going nowhere because Life within
> > materialism as Prof.Cleland in the Seedmagazine article reasoned isn't
> > defined.
>
> gee. and yet you have a computer, based on science....not jesus
>
> go figure
Damaeus
backspace
> Nether the word 'random' nor 'selection' are even close the the words
> 'purposeless' or 'purpose.'
> As you've been shown 'random selection' s used all of the time.
Random and selection are used all of the time but with different
intent in different contexts. The context Dawkins is talking about
starting from the first cell 3bil years ago amounts to: Whatever
happens happened. Nothing back then got "selected" , there was no
"selection at random" or "random selection" as used in the article
below from Irishnews to determine which kids attend school. Something
"happened" 3bil years ago, an even took place "randomly". The correct
term to use as a synonym for this occurence is : Whatever happened
happened. It just happened to happen that a cell formed DNA arose, a
fish formed. Then what happened? Well what happened is that the fish
climbed out the water sprouted limbs and climbed a tree. Ok, now what
happened to happen after this. Well, this thing turned into a monkey
climbed down the tree and gave birth to a monkey that looked like a
human. There the entire Theory of Whatever??? in a nutshell not
theory of evolution because nobody can tell me who established the
theory.
"....Pupils may face selection at random or by address By Simon Doyle
Without the security of good 11-plus grades children may have to rely
on random selection or their address to determine whether they gain
entry into Northern Ireland’s most popular schools. Education
Correspondent Simon Doyle reports............."
Dr. Acula
> On Apr 22, 7:14 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nether the word 'random' nor 'selection' are even close the the words
> > 'purposeless' or 'purpose.'
> > As you've been shown 'random selection' s used all of the time.
>
> Random and selection are used all of the time but with different
> intent in different contexts. The context Dawkins is talking about
> starting from the first cell 3bil years ago amounts to: Whatever
> happens happened.
Uh, no, pt doesn't.
Nothing back then got "selected" , there was no
> "selection at random" or "random selection" as used in the article
> below from Irishnews to determine which kids attend school.
Yes, there was.
Something
> "happened" 3bil years ago, an even took place "randomly".
Yes, a mutation happened. Randomly.
The correct
> term to use as a synonym for this occurence is : Whatever happened
> happened. It just happened to happen that a cell formed DNA arose, a
> fish formed. Then what happened? Well what happened is that the fish
> climbed out the water sprouted limbs and climbed a tree. Ok, now what
> happened to happen after this. Well, this thing turned into a monkey
> climbed down the tree and gave birth to a monkey that looked like a
> human. There the entire Theory of Whatever??? in a nutshell not
> theory of evolution because nobody can tell me who established the
> theory.
Doesn't matter who established anything. We have modern observations
that prove that: Mutations happen in genes. Most of these are neutral.
Some are beneficial and others are bad. The beneficial genes tend to
spread throughout a population, eventually they may become static.
> http://www.irishnews.com/searchlog.asp?reason=denied_empty&script_nam...
>
> "....Pupils may face selection at random or by address By Simon Doyle
>
> Without the security of good 11-plus grades children may have to rely
> on random selection or their address to determine whether they gain
> entry into Northern Ireland’s most popular schools. Education
> Correspondent Simon Doyle reports............."
Irish news? What the hell s that supposed to show? Theists like you
give theists like me a bad name. You are a dishonest coward. Again,
please address the genetic data and observations of change in
populations.
backspace
> Doesn't matter who established anything. We have modern observations
> that prove that: Mutations happen in genes.
Mutations do happen and thus your telling us the obvious, why do
mutations happen we need to know.
> Most of these are neutral. Some are beneficial and others are bad.
Everything that happens in the universe is either progressive, stasis
or regressive, you're covering all your bases making your stories
indisputable. See
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/b79eb3daa21e3a93#
Random + non-random covers all bases since there can only be these two
reasons for something to be in existence. We are told about "random
mutation + non-random natural selection" explaining transmutation.
Lets strip out natural, mutation, selection retaining "random + non-
random" or "random + directed" or "non-motive + motive". An object at
a certain place can only be there because of a motive or non-motive.
Thus transmutationists are covering all their bases with "random + non-
random" making their stories unfalsifiable.
> The beneficial genes tend to spread throughout a population
Other than noting they spread how did you measure their
beneficiality ? Woland it is no wonder you trashed my Tautology
article on Wikipedia, you don't understand the concept of a
tautology.
> eventually they may become static.
OR regressive or progressive....... or whatever happens will happen
to the gene.
Dr. Acula
> On Apr 27, 3:52 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter who established anything. We have modern observations
> > that prove that: Mutations happen in genes.
>
> Mutations do happen and thus your telling us the obvious, why do
> mutations happen we need to know.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutated
"Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material
during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing
radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can be induced by the
organism, itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation."
> > Most of these are neutral. Some are beneficial and others are bad.
>
> Everything that happens in the universe is either progressive, stasis
> or regressive, you're covering all your bases making your stories
> indisputable.
i don't make it indisputable. The facts do. Thats what we do with the
scientific method, look at the data and try to figure out why things
are the way they are and how they got that way. Obviously we're gong
to try to "cover all the bases." Why would we leave stuff out?
>Seehttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread...
> Random + non-random covers all bases since there can only be these two
> reasons for something to be in existence. We are told about "random
> mutation + non-random natural selection" explaining transmutation.
> Lets strip out natural, mutation, selection retaining "random + non-
> random" or "random + directed" or "non-motive + motive". An object at
> a certain place can only be there because of a motive or non-motive.
> Thus transmutationists are covering all their bases with "random + non-
> random" making their stories unfalsifiable.
>
> > The beneficial genes tend to spread throughout a population
>
> Other than noting they spread how did you measure their
> beneficiality ? Woland it is no wonder you trashed my Tautology
> article on Wikipedia, you don't understand the concept of a
> tautology.
Uh, considering that i have support for my edits and you have zero,
you may want to reconsider which one of us does not know what...
Again, follow my brief explanation of hypothesis testing and try to
refute the actual data, no word games.
backspace
> Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutated
"....Less favorable (or deleterious) mutations can be reduced in
frequency in the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable
(beneficial or advantageous) mutations may accumulate and result in
adaptive evolutionary changes. For example, a butterfly may produce
offspring with new mutations. ..."
=== Replace natural selection with Wonder Women ===
Less favorable attributes are reduced by Wonder Women, while more
favorable attributes may accumulate.
=== Remove wonder women ===
Less favorable attributes reduce and favorable attributes accumulate.
--- http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
Dr. Acula
Not a tautology as, (once again) there is no repetition of meaning.
These are just facts dude. Deal with it. I don't even understand your
argument anymore. This is just a description of what happens to DNA.
Are you saying these don't happen? Of course not. So, what exactly is
your point?
backspace
> > > > If A then "purposeless purpose" which is like believing a traffic
> > > > light can be green and red at the same time.
>
> > > No one one said anything about purpose.
>
> > > > If B then "purposive purpose" which is double speak and a tautological
> > > > proposition ,hence a fallacy.
> > > Again, no one said anything about purpose. You have to address the
> > > actual evidence, not the words used to describe the evidence. In this
> > > case you should describe the actual program and what it does and then
> > > explain why you seem to think its wrong. This should be done without
> > > reverting to sophomoric word games.
>
> > The weasel program is being addressed by these thought experiments. I
> > am asking you to reverse the whole thing instead of simulating with a
> > computer "me thinks ....." rather take the computer program as written
> > in C and simulate it with a number or bags each marked M , E, T, H
> > etc... in physical space and not computer space. Inside the bag are
> > ten marbles with only one marked M, E, T respectively for each bag.
> > Then do a "selection at random" or probability selection by placing
> > your hand inside and scrambling the marbles. This whole thought
> > experiment is being confused because people are insisting on using a
> > computer to do it. Things are much more clarified if done in real life
> > by rather simulating what the C , Pascal or Python program is doing.
>
> I have no idea why you think this would be helpful. If we did it by
> hand we would similar results. Thats obvious.
>
> > You can't call the "probability selection" or "selection at random" a
> > random selection, because we are dealing with exact terms not
> > colloquial expressions.
>
> All three of those things are synonymous (or more accurately a
> "selection at random" and "random selection" are subsets of
> "probability selection"). Changing the word order has absolutely no
> affect on the intended meaning.
>They both mean that
> 1) there is no pattern in regards to the outcome of the selection and
Do you mean there is no predictable sequence of marbles extracted as
the person does a probability selection or selection at random?
Because the word "pattern" can be used in multiple contexts. "pattern"
is usually associated with non-predictability and "design" with
predictable or intent.
> 2) we cannot predict the next selection in the sequence.
You mean the next pattern in the sequence? You probably mean we can't
predict the next pattern resulting from the probability sample or
"selection at random" by which I mean the act of placing your hand in
the bag scrambling the marbles and extracting one. Now one probably
could call this "random selection" but then only because the intent is
clear, but to be exact we must say "selection at random".
The marble thus selected or sampled(intent) would be a pattern because
we didn't know which specific marble from the bag would be selected.
To clarify these thought experiments we must get away from the
computer and simulate what the computer is doing by using bags of
marbles labeled "Me thinks it is like a weasel". Stuffing algorithms
into computers makes the whole issue more complex then it needs to
be. What about people who don't know anything about computers , they
can't follow the logic.
backspace
Dr. Acula
i mean exactly what said. And i mean "random selection" not
"probability selection or selection at random."
"pattern" is never "associated with non-predictability." i have no
idea where you would come up
with that. Again, learn some English.
> > 2) we cannot predict the next selection in the sequence.
>
> You mean the next pattern in the sequence?
No, i mean what i said, "the next selection in the sequence."
>You probably mean we can't
> predict the next pattern resulting from the probability sample or
> "selection at random" by which I mean the act of placing your hand in
> the bag scrambling the marbles and extracting one. Now one probably
> could call this "random selection" but then only because the intent is
> clear, but to be exact we must say "selection at random".
No, they are they same thing. They are always the same thing and they
will always be the same thing, regardless of context or anything else,
n the same way that "the house of Bill" ps synonymous with "Bill's
house."
>
> The marble thus selected or sampled(intent) would be a pattern because
> we didn't know which specific marble from the bag would be selected.
There is no pattern, as it is a random sequence.
> To clarify these thought experiments we must get away from the
> computer and simulate what the computer is doing by using bags of
> marbles labeled "Me thinks it is like a weasel".
Go for it.
>Stuffing algorithms
> into computers makes the whole issue more complex then it needs to
> be.
Not for people with brains.
>What about people who don't know anything about computers , they
> can't follow the logic.
Any normal person can follow this, the computer is simply dong the
work instead of the person.
trader100
> Nether the word 'random' nor 'selection' are even close the the words
> 'purposeless' or 'purpose.' As you've been shown 'random selection' s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
"....The weasel program is a computer simulation written by Richard
Dawkins in order to demonstrate the power of random variation and non-
random cumulative selection in natural and artificial evolutionary
systems...."
=== rephrase ===
The program is a simulation to demonstrate the power of whatever
happens happens and selection in systems....
It more accurate to replace "random variation" with whatever happens
happened, to show there was no intent.
Dr. Acula
Uh not it isn't. In fact its just plain wrong and dishonest, to boot.
Obviously 'random variation' is not synonymous with 'whatever
happens happens.'
trader100
> > === rephrase ===
> > The program is a simulation to demonstrate the power of whatever
> > happens happens and selection in systems....
> > It more accurate to replace "random variation" with whatever happens
> > happened, to show there was no intent.
> Uh not it isn't. In fact its just plain wrong and dishonest, to boot.
> Obviously 'random variation' is not synonymous with 'whatever
> happens happens.'
Depends on the intent though. Something 3bil years ago happened, an
event took place with no intent. Today when placing my hand inside the
bag of marbles I am doing a "probability sample" or "random
selection", the concept here with "random selection" is still a
motive, the motive of selecting any marble. The marble didn't select
itself. Thus one can't speak of "random selection" 3bil years
ago ,whatever happened 3bil years ago just happened to happen.
"random selection" must always be associated with "selection at
random" which in turn means "probability sample" from the wikipedia
sample article, if you insist on saying "random selection". "random"
can mean that whatever happens ,happened like the motion of gas
molecules. They happen to move about wherever they might move about
happening along the way so to speak. In the same sense 3bil years
something just happened to happen and "poof" DNA assembled, fish,
monkey then monkey give birth to monkey that says "mommy".
Or "random" can actually mean a motive, will and intent such as the
act of making a "probability sample". It is dishonest to use "random"
actually because mathematically the concept is meaningless. Many
people mean "purposeless, hopeless, waiting for death then ceasing to
exist" type of philosophy. The trouble is that we all inject our
metaphysical world view into the debates with "random" , random what?
Like "descent with modification" what exactly do you mean by
"modification" - who did the modifying. Nobody? Well then rather say
"descent via whatever happend to happen" - which of course is
unfalsifiable. Whatever happens really does happen to happen, how
could anybody disprove this?
Burkhard
> On Apr 30, 11:52 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > === rephrase ===
> > > The program is a simulation to demonstrate the power of whatever
> > > happens happens and selection in systems....
> > > It more accurate to replace "random variation" with whatever happens
> > > happened, to show there was no intent.
> > Uh not it isn't. In fact its just plain wrong and dishonest, to boot.
> > Obviously 'random variation' is not synonymous with 'whatever
> > happens happens.'
>
> Depends on the intent though.
No it doesn't
Something 3bil years ago happened, an
> event took place with no intent. Today when placing my hand inside the
> bag of marbles I am doing a "probability sample" or "random
> selection", the concept here with "random selection" is still a
> motive, the motive of selecting any marble. The marble didn't select
> itself.
Irrelevant for the properties of the sample chosen.
2+2=4, it doesn't matter if i calculate this with the intent to pay my
council tax bill, or for entertainment purpose (such beautiful
numbers), to pass a math exam etc etc. The only debate you can have is
if picking a marble is a random process in that sense: do small
variations in the size and weight of the marbles etc make it more
likely that one is chosen over the other? And we can check this by
comparing the actual result with the mathematically predicted, if we
do the experiment often enough.
Thus one can't speak of "random selection" 3bil years
> ago ,whatever happened 3bil years ago just happened to happen.
>
> "random selection" must always be associated with "selection at
> random" which in turn means "probability sample" from the wikipedia
> sample article, if you insist on saying "random selection". "random"
> can mean that whatever happens ,happened like the motion of gas
> molecules. They happen to move about wherever they might move about
> happening along the way so to speak.
but we can nnontheless accuratly desribe the system.
In the same sense 3bil years
> something just happened to happen and "poof" DNA assembled, fish,
> monkey then monkey give birth to monkey that says "mommy".
>
> Or "random" can actually mean a motive, will and intent such as the
> act of making a "probability sample".
Irrelevant for the mathematical properties of the sample
> It is dishonest to use "random"
> actually because mathematically the concept is meaningless.
It is ignorant to call a core mathematical concept meaningless.
Try Kallenberg, O., Foundations of Modern Probability, 2nd ed.
Springer Series in Statistics. (2002).
and
Kallenberg, O., Random Measures , 4th edition. Academic Press, New
York, London; Akademie-Verlag, Berlin (1986).
to get up to speed
> Many
> people mean "purposeless, hopeless, waiting for death then ceasing to
> exist" type of philosophy. The trouble is that we all inject our
> metaphysical world view into the debates with "random" , random what?
> Like "descent with modification" what exactly do you mean by
> "modification" - who did the modifying. Nobody?
Which has nothing to do with the mathematical concept of randomness
Well then rather say
> "descent via whatever happend to happen" - which of course is
> unfalsifiable. Whatever happens really does happen to happen, how
> could anybody disprove this?
Only because you don;t understand probability theory which has been
developed precisely to be able to describe random processes, and make
them testable. ,
trader100
> > event took place with no intent. Today when placing my hand inside the
> > bag of marbles I am doing a "probability sample" or "random
> > selection", the concept here with "random selection" is still a
> > motive, the motive of selecting any marble. The marble didn't select
> > itself.
> It is ignorant to call a core mathematical concept meaningless.
Retired tenured Prof. Herrmann a YEC calls random a strong delusion
and says mathematically there is no such thing.
> Which has nothing to do with the mathematical concept of randomness
> Only because you don;t understand probability theory which has been
> developed precisely to be able to describe random processes, and make
> them testable. ,
What we refer to as the "random behavior" of a gas Prof.Herrmann says
must be "mindom" behaviour - http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html.
We could also say that the "random" behavior of gas is a probability
distribution, snatching a gas molecule out of the millions would be a
"probability sample" which still means that somebody had intent to
make this probability sample or "selection at random".
trader100
> No it doesn't
Yes, this is the problem, nobody knows what is your intent. What does
"survival of the fittest" and "beer is beer" mean? Depends on who says
"beer is beer" and what concept he had constrained by his knowledge.
> Something 3bil years ago happened, an
> > event took place with no intent. Today when placing my hand inside the
> > bag of marbles I am doing a "probability sample" or "random
> > selection", the concept here with "random selection" is still a
> > motive, the motive of selecting any marble. The marble didn't select
> > itself.
> Irrelevant for the properties of the sample chosen.
The bags of marbles are marked M, E, ...... for :"Me thinks like a
weasel" . Mark 26 bags from A...to Z . The fact that we leave out the
bag marked 'P' is the act of making a "non-random probability sample"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)
trader100
> On May 1, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > event took place with no intent. Today when placing my hand inside the
> > > bag of marbles I am doing a "probability sample" or "random
> > > selection", the concept here with "random selection" is still a
> > > motive, the motive of selecting any marble. The marble didn't select
> > > itself.
> > It is ignorant to call a core mathematical concept meaningless.
>
> Retired tenured Prof. Herrmann a YEC calls random a strong delusion
> and says mathematically there is no such thing.
>
> > Which has nothing to do with the mathematical concept of randomness
> > Only because you don;t understand probability theory which has been
> > developed precisely to be able to describe random processes, and make
> > them testable. ,
>
> What we refer to as the "random behavior" of a gas Prof.Herrmann says
> We could also say that the "random" behavior of gas is a probability
> distribution, snatching a gas molecule out of the millions would be a
> "probability sample" which still means that somebody had intent to
> make this probability sample or "selection at random".
Thus 3bil years ago there was no "probability sample" which is the
context "random selection" is used in. The word "random" can't be used
to describe what occurred 3bil years ago because of the strong
association at the pragmatics level with "probability
sample" (intent). You can only say whatever "happened happened" back
then, no observers , no consciousness just matter. Matter turned into
DNA a DNA into a monkey, monkey gave birth to a monkey that said:
"Mommy what long teeth you have...."
Burkhard
> On May 1, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Depends on the intent though.
> > No it doesn't
>
> Yes, this is the problem, nobody knows what is your intent. What does
> "survival of the fittest" and "beer is beer" mean? Depends on who says
> "beer is beer" and what concept he had constrained by his knowledge.
Irrelevant for the question whether a process is a random process.
This is not about meaning of words, it is about a feature of a
process.
>
> > Something 3bil years ago happened, an
> > > event took place with no intent. Today when placing my hand inside the
> > > bag of marbles I am doing a "probability sample" or "random
> > > selection", the concept here with "random selection" is still a
> > > motive, the motive of selecting any marble. The marble didn't select
> > > itself.
> > Irrelevant for the properties of the sample chosen.
>
> The bags of marbles are marked M, E, ...... for :"Me thinks like a
> weasel" . Mark 26 bags from A...to Z . The fact that we leave out the
> bag marked 'P' is the act of making a "non-random probability sample"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)
Irrelevant for the properties of the selection
Burkhard
> On May 1, 10:59 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > event took place with no intent. Today when placing my hand inside the
> > > bag of marbles I am doing a "probability sample" or "random
> > > selection", the concept here with "random selection" is still a
> > > motive, the motive of selecting any marble. The marble didn't select
> > > itself.
>
> Retired tenured Prof. Herrmann a YEC calls random a strong delusion
> and says mathematically there is no such thing.
And in which refereed mathematical journal does he says this, and what
are his arguments? The mathematical cocnept of random is well
researched and perfectly clear.
>
> > Which has nothing to do with the mathematical concept of randomness
> > Only because you don;t understand probability theory which has been
> > developed precisely to be able to describe random processes, and make
> > them testable. ,
>
> What we refer to as the "random behavior" of a gas Prof.Herrmann says
> must be "mindom" behaviour -http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html.
> We could also say that the "random" behavior of gas is a probability
> distribution, snatching a gas molecule out of the millions would be a
> "probability sample" which still means that somebody had intent to
> make this probability sample or "selection at random".
It is irrelevant for the mathematical properties of ta sample if the
collector had intent or not. There are four piles of bird dropping on
the street in front of my office, and four bottles of beer in my
Fridge. On set was created intentionally (I chose to buy four
bottles), the other was not. Nonetheless, both sets have the same
mathematical property of "having four members".
Dr. Acula
> On Apr 30, 11:52 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > === rephrase ===
> > > The program is a simulation to demonstrate the power of whatever
> > > happens happens and selection in systems....
> > > It more accurate to replace "random variation" with whatever happens
> > > happened, to show there was no intent.
> > Uh not it isn't. In fact its just plain wrong and dishonest, to boot.
> > Obviously 'random variation' is not synonymous with 'whatever
> > happens happens.'
>
> Depends on the intent though.
No it doesn't. Random always means the same thing, that is, that we
are unable to predict the outcome.
>Something 3bil years ago happened, an
> event took place with no intent.
Maybe. maybe God did "something," we don't know. We do know that
mutations happen and that some of these mutations allow organisms to
make more babies.
>Today when placing my hand inside the
> bag of marbles I am doing a "probability sample" or "random
> selection", the concept here with "random selection" is still a
> motive, the motive of selecting any marble. The marble didn't select
> itself. Thus one can't speak of "random selection" 3bil years
> ago ,whatever happened 3bil years ago just happened to happen.
Sure we can. The environment selects traits that are better for making
babies.
> "random selection" must always be associated with "selection at
> random" which in turn means "probability sample" from the wikipedia
> sample article, if you insist on saying "random selection". "random"
> can mean that whatever happens ,happened like the motion of gas
> molecules.
No, random always means that we are unable to predict a the outcome of
a given event. We can't tell if things are truly random but if we
can't predict the outcome or identify a non-random pattern then we
call it random.
>They happen to move about wherever they might move about
> happening along the way so to speak. In the same sense 3bil years
> something just happened to happen and "poof" DNA assembled, fish,
> monkey then monkey give birth to monkey that says "mommy".
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
> Or "random" can actually mean a motive, will and intent such as the
> act of making a "probability sample".
No, "random" cannot mean motive. Ever. We can select things at random
but that only says that our intention was (duh) to make a random
selection. Why are you engaging in truisms? :P
>It is dishonest to use "random"
> actually because mathematically the concept is meaningless.
No it isn't. Take a probability and statistics course.
>Many
> people mean "purposeless, hopeless, waiting for death then ceasing to
> exist" type of philosophy. The trouble is that we all inject our
> metaphysical world view into the debates with "random" , random what?
I don't, mathematicians don't. In fact I think that you're the only
person who does this. Its called projection. Look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
> Like "descent with modification" what exactly do you mean by
> "modification" - who did the modifying. Nobody?
Mutations do the modifying. Then the mutations can be good (i.e. more
babies), bad (i.e. less babies) or neutral (i.e. same number of
babies). Obviously the one who make more babies will have there genes
spread at a higher frequency, thats the descent part.
>Well then rather say
> "descent via whatever happend to happen" - which of course is
> unfalsifiable. Whatever happens really does happen to happen, how
> could anybody disprove this?
There are two ways to disprove it:
1) Show that mutations don't happen.
2) Show that mutations have no effect on reproduction
All you have to do is look at what the hypothesis would predict and
come up with an alternate hypothesis to test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
What kind of data would you expect to disprove this? How would you go
about testing this?