random mutations?

[Dale]

random is another word for acausal
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/random#Adjective
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acausal

determinism is a philosophy of causality
"Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics
is known as cause-and-effect."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/causality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
its an either/or choice, you can't have determinism and genetic drift,
or anything else considered random

random seed distributions are not really random
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Ernest Major]

On 12/06/2015 06:45, Dale wrote:
> random is another word for acausal
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/random#Adjective
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acausal
>
> determinism is a philosophy of causality
> "Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics
> is known as cause-and-effect."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/causality
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> its an either/or choice, you can't have determinism and genetic drift,
> or anything else considered random

You can have determinism and genetic drift. (Dictionaries are not the be
all and end all of describing concepts.) Genetic drift is (the result)
of differential reproductive success NOT causally correlated with
genotype. That doesn't mean that the differential reproductive success
is uncaused, and there's no contradiction between determinism and
genetic drift.

>
> random seed distributions are not really random
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed
>

--

alias Ernest Major

[RonO]

Random in terms of mutations just means that the mutations are arbitrary
in their incidence and effect. Most mutations are neutral or close
enough to neutral (little or no effect on selection) that it doesn't
matter. A lot of mutations have negative effects, and an overlapping
subset may have both negative and positive effects dependent on the
environment, and a few mutations will be beneficial.

Mutations are not random in any strict sense. There is a different rate
for different types of mutations and different places and sequences of
the genome have different rates of mutation, but there doesn't seem to
be any overall directing force to drive mutations in any one direction
or the other in terms of function.

CpG sites in the genome (where a cytosine is next to a guanine) mutate
at a much higher frequency than other base combinations. The C tends to
mutate to a T likely through deamination and may not be repaired as
efficiently. One of the highest rates of mutation known in the human
genome is in the FGFR3 gene where a CpG site mutates (the same base) in
about on in 14,000 life births. We detect this mutation because it
results in a dominant phenotype of large effect (achondroplastic
dwarfism). If this phenotype had not been selected against in the
population it would obviously be found at a much higher frequency, but
it was selected against. The homozygote is lethal (two copies of the
dwarf mutation and you are dead) and the physical restrictions have
until recently been selected against. It is an example of a mutation
that has negative effects that has had to have been selected against in
the human population or we would all be dwarfs.

The evidence that a lot of bad mutations happen and are selected against
is overwhelming. One of the issues is how does selection deal with so
many bad mutations. Word games are not the issue.

You can't argue against biological evolution with stupid word games that
do not matter. You have to start dealing with reality instead.

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

if you say genetic drift is random there is

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 08:05 AM, RonO wrote:
> Random in terms of mutations just means that the mutations are arbitrary

arbitrary and random are not the same

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/12/2015 1:45 AM, Dale wrote:
> random is another word for acausal

In this context, it is not. The mutations are not acausal; they have
chemical and physical causes. They are merely random *with respect to
their effects*. Some are fatal. Some make a non-fatal phenotypic change
in the organism. Most do nothing of note. As far as we can tell, they
are not skewed toward any particular effect. That's all that is meant by
"random" in this context.

>
> determinism is a philosophy of causality
> "Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics
> is known as cause-and-effect."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/causality
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> its an either/or choice, you can't have determinism and genetic drift,
> or anything else considered random

Nonsense. An entirely deterministic system should produce the same
effect given precisely the same conditions. Do you think that "precisely
the same conditions" could ever apply to biological organisms and how
much (or little) individuals reproduce? Because that is exactly what's
involved in genetic drift. Even two "identical twin" organisms can meet
with very different outcomes, such as when the wolf catches only one of
them.

[Ernest Major]

Would you care to read my response again, rather than reiterating your
strawman.

You can have determinism and genetic drift. (Dictionaries are not the be

all and end all of describing concepts.) ***Genetic drift is (the

result) of differential reproductive success NOT causally correlated

with genotype***. That doesn't mean that the differential reproductive

success is uncaused, and there's no contradiction between determinism
and genetic drift.

It doesn't matter whether the changes to allele frequencies are random
or caused; all that is needed for them to be genetic drift is for them
not to be causally correlated to the genotype.

The differences between random and non-deterministic are subtler, but
they do exist, so your broader claim is also wrong.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Glenn]

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mleoc5$bvh$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 6/12/2015 1:45 AM, Dale wrote:
>> random is another word for acausal
>
> In this context, it is not. The mutations are not acausal; they have
> chemical and physical causes. They are merely random *with respect to
> their effects*. Some are fatal. Some make a non-fatal phenotypic change
> in the organism. Most do nothing of note. As far as we can tell, they
> are not skewed toward any particular effect. That's all that is meant by
> "random" in this context.
>

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/2/140172

[Swan Black]

there was an article recently about Cancer,
and the theory/study was that many Cancers were just random mutations

or - similar to prostate cancer in men,
cancer can come, to many of us, as a part of aging, and hard to stop
[or something similar]

we will know much more in the coming decades/centuries though,
so why try to pin down something hard to pin down

marc

[Greg Guarino]

Care to explain in your own words what you find interesting about that
link? This bit: "evolution does not proceed by simple random processes
but is guided by physical properties of the DNA itself and functional
constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA" doesn't seem especially
earthshaking to me, but I make no claim to sufficient expertise to judge.

That mutations are "guided" by the physical properties of DNA seems
uncontroversial. I know of no biology that suggests that mutations are
strictly random in that any imaginable mutation is as likely as any other.

The question is are mutations in general skewed towards "useful" results?

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 10:25 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> reiterating your strawman

a long story doesn't replace the onus of science applying to
minimalistic explanations

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 09:56 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> random *with respect to their effects*

how do you know that they are just "unrelated"?

if they are in ANY way random you cannot know ANYTHING

something you cannot know, like randomness, is illogical, it cannot fit
logic, mathematics, or science

note, I already covered that random seed generations, etc., are not
really random

determinism also implies that there is nothing that is "unrelated"

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 11:52 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> functional constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA

I watched a DVD from http://www.thegreatcourses.com called "Biology and
Human Behavior" it said there are means by which proteins can encode DNA
into neural systems

it didn't go as far as to say it could encode into sperm/eggs, but that
would be an explanation of inherited behavior and more "fit" species
with consideration of the environment

I don't quite buy evolution without inherited behavior

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[jillery]

Additional knowledge is never a foregone conclusion. It takes effort
to learn new things. If we don't try to pin it down now, we won't
know much more in the future.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:42:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Care to identify the specifically relevant content with
regard to what Greg posted?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[James Beck]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:45:57 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>random is another word for acausal

Random is not another word for acausal. Cause and effect does not
preclude random outcomes.

[snip]

[Dexter]

Dale wrote:

> On 06/12/2015 10:25 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> > reiterating your strawman
>
> a long story doesn't replace the onus of science applying
> to minimalistic explanations

______________________________________________

Do us all a favor and define "minimalist"

--
- There is no harm in being a fool; harm lies in being a
fool at the top of your lungs. (Author Unknown)

[Ymir]

In article <8hblrb....@news.alt.net>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
wrote:

> On 06/12/2015 09:56 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> > random *with respect to their effects*
>
> how do you know that they are just "unrelated"?

Let's illustrate this with an example: Consider a possible mutation
which would be beneficial to a population living in colder climates,
deleterious to a population living in warmer climates, and neutral to a
population living in temperate climates.

When we say that mutations are random, we simply mean that the above
mutation would occur with equal frequency in any population regardless
of the type of climate the population occupies.

In other words, there is no correlation between the needs of the
population and they types of mutations which will occur; this is easily
testable.

Now if said mutation does occur, the likelihood of it spreading through
the population is decidedly *non-random* using the exact same definition
of randomness. Beneficial mutations are likely to spread; deletrious
ones are likely to be selected out of the population. That's natural
selection, which is a non-random process.

A neutral mutation will have no selective pressures which means it may
or may not spread -- that's genetic drift.

> if they are in ANY way random you cannot know ANYTHING

That's simply false. Many aspects of weather patterns are random, but
meteorologists can predict weather patterns with considerably greater
than chance accuracy.

> something you cannot know, like randomness, is illogical, it cannot fit
> logic, mathematics, or science

Logic says nothing whatsoever about randomness or things we cannot know.
Logic is concerned with the validity of arguments; it tells us nothing
about whether the premises of an argument are true, or whether they are
knowable, or whether certain things are random or not.

> note, I already covered that random seed generations, etc., are not
> really random

Yes, everyone knows that.

> determinism also implies that there is nothing that is "unrelated"

For some values of "determinism", perhaps. Note, though, that
indeterminism can be defined in a variety of different ways -- we often
treat phenomena as non-deterministic if we are not in a position to
predict their outcomes even if the underlying physics is completely
deterministic (for example, when we speak of coin-tosses as random we
simply mean that both outcomes will occur equally often given a
sufficiently large number of trials and that for any given coin toss the
average observer is not in a position to predict the outcome with
greater than chance accuracy -- this despite the fact that the
trajectory of the coin is entirely determined by physical laws).

Andre

[Ernest Major]

On 12/06/2015 17:05, Dale wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 10:25 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> reiterating your strawman
>
> a long story doesn't replace the onus of science applying to
> minimalistic explanations
>

If you think the material you snipped is a long story you need to work
on extending your attention span. Once you've done that you can then
explain why your reply above was not a non-sequitur.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Bode]

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 12:47:28 AM UTC-5, Dale wrote:
> random is another word for acausal
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/random#Adjective
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acausal
>

It's also a word for "lack of pattern or predictability", which is how
it's used when describing genetic mutation and drift.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

> determinism is a philosophy of causality
> "Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics
> is known as cause-and-effect."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/causality
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> its an either/or choice, you can't have determinism and genetic drift,
> or anything else considered random
>
> random seed distributions are not really random
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed
>
> --
> Dale
> http://www.dalekelly.org

Is the result of a die roll "random" in the sense of "having
no cause"? No, of course not; you threw the dice. However, it is "random"
in the sense that we cannot track all of the forces acting on all of the
atoms of the dice in real time, so that the outcome is *unpredictable*. At
best we can make probabilistic predictions (there's a 1 in 36 chance of
rolling snake eyes vs. a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 7), but we can't
predict that a *specific* throw will give us a particular result, even
though the result is entirely deterministic (based on how hard you threw
the dice, the angle at which they strike the surface, the elasticity of
the dice and the surface, etc.).

Similarly, genetic mutations are not "random" in the sense of "having
no cause." However, we cannot track the state of every peptide in every
gene in every cell in real time, so we cannot predict ahead of time what
mutations will occur and where, and what affect they'll have. We call
mutations "random" in the sense that many outcomes are possible and we
don't know ahead of time which one we'll get.

A good number of mutations are "neutral" - they have no effect on fitness.
However, these mutations are still passed on to succeeding generations,
and over time can become fixed in a population. These changes are *not*
"acausal" - they're just not selected for (or against).

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 03:09 PM, Dexter wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2015 10:25 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> reiterating your strawman
>>
>> a long story doesn't replace the onus of science applying
>> to minimalistic explanations
> ______________________________________________
>
> Do us all a favor and define "minimalist"
>

apply to all logic, including the simplest

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 03:48 PM, Ymir wrote:
> In article <8hblrb....@news.alt.net>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2015 09:56 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>> random *with respect to their effects*
>>
>> how do you know that they are just "unrelated"?
>
> Let's illustrate this with an example: Consider a possible mutation
> which would be beneficial to a population living in colder climates,
> deleterious to a population living in warmer climates, and neutral to a
> population living in temperate climates.
>
> When we say that mutations are random, we simply mean that the above
> mutation would occur with equal frequency in any population regardless
> of the type of climate the population occupies.
>
> In other words, there is no correlation between the needs of the
> population and they types of mutations which will occur; this is easily
> testable.
>

that is what I said, unrelated

but you are mincing words by calling it random, this drive needs ended

> Now if said mutation does occur, the likelihood of it spreading through
> the population is decidedly *non-random* using the exact same definition
> of randomness. Beneficial mutations are likely to spread; deletrious
> ones are likely to be selected out of the population. That's natural
> selection, which is a non-random process.
>
> A neutral mutation will have no selective pressures which means it may
> or may not spread -- that's genetic drift.
>
>> if they are in ANY way random you cannot know ANYTHING
>
> That's simply false. Many aspects of weather patterns are random, but
> meteorologists can predict weather patterns with considerably greater
> than chance accuracy.
>

in my original post, Message-ID: <8hah7o....@news.alt.net>
I went over how randomness is incompatible with ANY determinism or
causality, see the links to wikipedia/wiktionary

>> something you cannot know, like randomness, is illogical, it cannot fit
>> logic, mathematics, or science
>
> Logic says nothing whatsoever about randomness or things we cannot know.
> Logic is concerned with the validity of arguments; it tells us nothing
> about whether the premises of an argument are true, or whether they are
> knowable, or whether certain things are random or not.

logic forms hypothesis, without logic you have NO scientific process,

you could argue that without mathematics you have NO science, kind of
like the stumbling block of the Copenhagen Interpretation

maybe some scientists want dominion to profess anything that supports profit

>
>> note, I already covered that random seed generations, etc., are not
>> really random
>
> Yes, everyone knows that.
>
>> determinism also implies that there is nothing that is "unrelated"
>
> For some values of "determinism", perhaps. Note, though, that
> indeterminism can be defined in a variety of different ways -- we often
> treat phenomena as non-deterministic if we are not in a position to
> predict their outcomes even if the underlying physics is completely
> deterministic (for example, when we speak of coin-tosses as random we
> simply mean that both outcomes will occur equally often given a
> sufficiently large number of trials and that for any given coin toss the
> average observer is not in a position to predict the outcome with
> greater than chance accuracy -- this despite the fact that the
> trajectory of the coin is entirely determined by physical laws).
>

are you still trying to save the inclusion of the word "random" in this
discourse?

> Andre
>


--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

I provided wikipedia/wiktionary links in the original post
Message-ID: <8hah7o....@news.alt.net>

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 04:27 PM, John Bode wrote:
> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 12:47:28 AM UTC-5, Dale wrote:
>> random is another word for acausal
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/random#Adjective
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acausal
>>
>
> It's also a word for "lack of pattern or predictability", which is how
> it's used when describing genetic mutation and drift.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

lack of pattern is NO pattern, not acasual pattern or illogical pattern,
and certainly can't be carried on in discourse as ANY pattern

>
>> determinism is a philosophy of causality
>> "Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics
>> is known as cause-and-effect."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/causality
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
>> its an either/or choice, you can't have determinism and genetic drift,
>> or anything else considered random
>>
>> random seed distributions are not really random
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed
>>
>> --
>> Dale
>> http://www.dalekelly.org
>
> Is the result of a die roll "random" in the sense of "having
> no cause"? No, of course not; you threw the dice. However, it is "random"
> in the sense that we cannot track all of the forces acting on all of the
> atoms of the dice in real time, so that the outcome is *unpredictable*.

then there is no determinism at all with respect to die rolls?

then there is no determinism?

I'll agree to the existence of randomness if you agree to spirituality,
both are beyond the dimension of determinism, both fall into certain
sets like the illogical

>At
> best we can make probabilistic predictions (there's a 1 in 36 chance of
> rolling snake eyes vs. a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 7), but we can't
> predict that a *specific* throw will give us a particular result, even
> though the result is entirely deterministic (based on how hard you threw
> the dice, the angle at which they strike the surface, the elasticity of
> the dice and the surface, etc.).

the casino near where I live pays out over 90% on table games

>
> Similarly, genetic mutations are not "random" in the sense of "having
> no cause." However, we cannot track the state of every peptide in every
> gene in every cell in real time, so we cannot predict ahead of time what
> mutations will occur and where, and what affect they'll have. We call
> mutations "random" in the sense that many outcomes are possible and we
> don't know ahead of time which one we'll get.
>

are you mincing words to carry on a drive inclusive of the concept of
randomness? I don't know the sociological benefit of this

> A good number of mutations are "neutral" - they have no effect on fitness.
> However, these mutations are still passed on to succeeding generations,
> and over time can become fixed in a population. These changes are *not*
> "acausal" - they're just not selected for (or against).
>

I think life experience can be inherited too, don't buy evolution without it

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[James Beck]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 18:14:59 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>On 06/12/2015 02:11 PM, James Beck wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 01:45:57 -0400, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>
>>> random is another word for acausal
>>
>> Random is not another word for acausal. Cause and effect does not
>> preclude random outcomes.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
>I provided wikipedia/wiktionary links in the original post

Possibly you didn't read them.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/random#Adjective does not link to
acausal.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acausal doesn't link to random.

Consider the possibility that wiktionary doesn't link the two words
because they don't mean the same thing.

As for cause and effect, consider the common sentence: The referee
tossed a fair coin and it came up 'Heads.'

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

Hardly a definition. Care to try again?

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/12/15 9:15 AM, Dale wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 11:52 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> functional constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA
>
> I watched a DVD from http://www.thegreatcourses.com called "Biology and
> Human Behavior" it said there are means by which proteins can encode DNA
> into neural systems

I listed to the same course on CD and don't remember that. Which
lecture was it?

DNA, via protein encoding, can affect neural systems, so that behavior
can be inherited. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Dale]

go ahead and turn science into a religion, I'll have no part of it

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 07:39 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 6/12/15 9:15 AM, Dale wrote:
>> On 06/12/2015 11:52 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>>> functional constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA
>>
>> I watched a DVD from http://www.thegreatcourses.com called "Biology and
>> Human Behavior" it said there are means by which proteins can encode DNA
>> into neural systems
>
> I listed to the same course on CD and don't remember that. Which
> lecture was it?
>
> DNA, via protein encoding, can affect neural systems, so that behavior
> can be inherited. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of.
>

yes

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

On 06/12/2015 07:39 PM, Dexter wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2015 03:09 PM, Dexter wrote:
>>> Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2015 10:25 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>> reiterating your strawman
>>>>
>>>> a long story doesn't replace the onus of science
>>>> applying to minimalistic explanations
>>> ______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Do us all a favor and define "minimalist"
>>>
>>
>> apply to all logic, including the simplest
> ______________________________________________
>
> Hardly a definition. Care to try again?
>

no

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Glenn]

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mlev6a$6u3$1...@dont-email.me...

http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184

[Greg Guarino]

link? And the first one?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Ernest Major]

Nobody is turning science into a relgion; but you are treating bad
philosophy as religious dogma.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ymir]

In article <8hcb3p....@news.alt.net>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>

wrote:

> On 06/12/2015 03:48 PM, Ymir wrote:
> > In article <8hblrb....@news.alt.net>, Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/12/2015 09:56 AM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> >>> random *with respect to their effects*
> >>
> >> how do you know that they are just "unrelated"?
> >
> > Let's illustrate this with an example: Consider a possible mutation
> > which would be beneficial to a population living in colder climates,
> > deleterious to a population living in warmer climates, and neutral to a
> > population living in temperate climates.
> >
> > When we say that mutations are random, we simply mean that the above
> > mutation would occur with equal frequency in any population regardless
> > of the type of climate the population occupies.
> >
> > In other words, there is no correlation between the needs of the
> > population and they types of mutations which will occur; this is easily
> > testable.
> >
>
> that is what I said, unrelated
>
> but you are mincing words by calling it random, this drive needs ended

You do realise that 'random' has a wide range of different meanings in
different contexts. I think you'd be better off to try and learn how it
is used in this particular context rather than fixate on your particular
definition and assume that is what people are using it to mean. Commonly
used definitions include 'unpredictable', 'uncorrelated', or
'incompressible'.

'Acausal' isn't one normally used in science since that isn't exactly
something that can be tested. We can identify things for which no known
cause exists, but that's rather different from demonstrating that
something has no cause -- I can see no way in which such a claim could
be made testable, and science is concerned with the testable.

Where mutations are concerned, 'random' means 'uncorrelated' (to the
needs of the population).

> > Now if said mutation does occur, the likelihood of it spreading through
> > the population is decidedly *non-random* using the exact same definition
> > of randomness. Beneficial mutations are likely to spread; deletrious
> > ones are likely to be selected out of the population. That's natural
> > selection, which is a non-random process.
> >
> > A neutral mutation will have no selective pressures which means it may
> > or may not spread -- that's genetic drift.
> >
> >> if they are in ANY way random you cannot know ANYTHING
> >
> > That's simply false. Many aspects of weather patterns are random, but
> > meteorologists can predict weather patterns with considerably greater
> > than chance accuracy.
> >
>
> in my original post, Message-ID: <8hah7o....@news.alt.net>
> I went over how randomness is incompatible with ANY determinism or
> causality, see the links to wikipedia/wiktionary

For one very specific definition of random -- meaning essentially
'nondeterministic' (in a metaphysical rather than epistemological
sense). But that's rarely what people mean by this term.

> >> something you cannot know, like randomness, is illogical, it cannot fit
> >> logic, mathematics, or science
> >
> > Logic says nothing whatsoever about randomness or things we cannot know.
> > Logic is concerned with the validity of arguments; it tells us nothing
> > about whether the premises of an argument are true, or whether they are
> > knowable, or whether certain things are random or not.
>
> logic forms hypothesis, without logic you have NO scientific process,

Logic neither forms nor tests hypotheses. Logic is used to evaluate
whether a conclusion can be derived from a set of premises, or from a
set of axioms.

Science deals with empirical issues -- something which logic does not.

> you could argue that without mathematics you have NO science, kind of
> like the stumbling block of the Copenhagen Interpretation
>
> maybe some scientists want dominion to profess anything that supports profit

??

> are you still trying to save the inclusion of the word "random" in this
> discourse?

The problem with the word 'random' exists only in your mind.

Andre

[Glenn]

"Ymir" <agi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:agisaak.spamblock-6759F6.09275713062015@shawnews...

"Needs"? LOL.

"Value" would at least appear less biased to the paradigm.

"A central tenet in evolutionary theory is that mutations occur randomly with respect to their value to an organism"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22522932

But...

"The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs"
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php

[RSNorman]

On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 09:51:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Do you read the citations you post? This last one includes the
statement: "There are good reasons to suspect that molecules
intercommunicate by electromagnetic signals, and molecules that
interact share common frequencies so they can attract one another
through resonance...If that is the case, lactose supplied during
starvation for example, will send strong electromagnetic signals to
its normal metabolic enzyme, b-galactosidase, as well as to its gene,
lacZ causing it in turn to respond by transcription and to attract the
requisite mutagenic machinery..Resonance to electromagnetic signals is
very precise, and will have all the appearance of being directed,
particularly if the cell and organism is quantum coherent" The
citations to support these statements are all from the same source.

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:alpona5dq1utn0g6g...@4ax.com...

I try real hard not to read just the citations. Honest I do, daddy.

>This last one includes the
> statement: "There are good reasons to suspect that molecules
> intercommunicate by electromagnetic signals, and molecules that
> interact share common frequencies so they can attract one another
> through resonance...If that is the case, lactose supplied during
> starvation for example, will send strong electromagnetic signals to
> its normal metabolic enzyme, b-galactosidase, as well as to its gene,
> lacZ causing it in turn to respond by transcription and to attract the
> requisite mutagenic machinery..Resonance to electromagnetic signals is
> very precise, and will have all the appearance of being directed,
> particularly if the cell and organism is quantum coherent" The
> citations to support these statements are all from the same source.
>

I just farted.

[RonO]

On 6/12/2015 8:39 AM, Dale wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 08:05 AM, RonO wrote:
>> Random in terms of mutations just means that the mutations are arbitrary
>
> arbitrary and random are not the same
>
When in reality it makes no difference to any argument that you might
make, you have no beef.

Demonstrate that the difference matters.

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

all of which could be determinism, ordainment, or design

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Dale]

what matters is that science is beyond its means, science cannot
describe anything illogical or random, perhaps science is on the
defensive in a battle of wits with religion on those matters

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Glenn]

"Dale" <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote in message news:8hf6tf....@news.alt.net...

"There are several related reasons why this unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists to wrongly deny the reality and importance of evolution by natural selection. The second is that if mutations are not random and have some pattern, than that pattern creates a micro-direction in evolution. And since biological evolution is nothing but micro actions accumulating into macro actions, these micro-patterns leave open the possibility of macro directions in evolution. That raises all kinds of red flags. If there are evolutionary macro-directions, where do they originate? And what are the directions? To date, there is little consensus about evidence for macro-directions in evolution beyond an increase in complexity, but the very notion of evolution with any direction is so contrary to current dogma in modern evolution theory that it continues to embrace the assumption of randomness."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25264

[RonO]

You are obviously wrong. What matters is that what you are going on
about does not matter. Demonstrate otherwise. You can't just make
stupid claims. You have to at least try to back them up. Really,
demonstrate that what you are going on about matters. It is just a
simple fact that it does not matter in any way that would help you out.

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

okay, randomness is not a testable hypothesis, so it is not a theory, we
only have pseudo-randomness which is "random seed", pragmatic in sorting
sets to grasp some statistical process and comparison

science has lost its intrigue because of the 1916? Copenhagen
Interpretation, its all been applied science since then, even general
relativity with its universal expansion constant

string theory, untestable hypothesis, not a theory
M(em)"brane" theory, untestable hypothesis, not a theory

Many Worlds Interpretation, fails statistically with over 100% probability

Cramer Interpretation, fails statistically similarly

dimensions beyond the 4 of general relativity spacetime, untestable
hypothesis

its time that science acknowledges its search for the truth is over, and
that some hypothesis like blind faith, metaphors, parables, etc., are
assertively necessary as spirituality and deserve consideration in society

the scientific aspect of the renaissance is over, there is a cash cow of
a trove, but it is over


--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Greg Guarino]

Wrongheaded in the very first sentence:

"What is commonly called "random mutation" does not in fact occur in a
mathematically random pattern. "

Ugh. To my knowledge, no one says mutations occur in a mathematically
random pattern, merely that the mutations that occur are random with
respect to their effect in the fitness of the organism; a very different
concept.

[RonO]

You are just admitting that you can't deal with reality.

Your argument holds no weight because you have no argument. Playing
word games gets you no where. Deal with reality and justify your
argument. Since you can't do that, what are you doing?

Look into achondroplastic dwarfism. It is a dominant mutation that is
readily detectable when it occurs. Justify anything that you want to
claim about mutations using that obvious example. When you have no
argument, playing word games is stupid.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mlj46o$cnv$1...@dont-email.me...

I'm sure your supporters share your sympathies and will support you with their silence.

"What other kind of mutation could there possibly be?"
http://kk.org/mt-files/outofcontrol/ch19-d.html

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 07:24:26 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Not at all. It is not the custom here to merely chime in "me, too!".
But I will do so now. "Random" does not mean that every possibility
must have equal probability. A loaded set of dice will still produce
a random result. The location of mutations is not random in the
genome. The frequency of mutations varies according to circumstances
and conditions. Just considering point mutations, changing one base
to another, the three alternatives are not equally likely because it
is more likely to substitute one purine or pyrimidine for another of
the same type than to switch between the two. There are known "hot
spots" for mutation.

The question is whether a specific point mutation or deletion or
insertion is increased by a mutation specifically because the
resulting phenotype has higher fitness. That is, does the mutating
mechanism somehow "know" that "we are now in a drought so I will put a
T at this location instead of a C because that is what is necessary to
increase the expression of those other genes that will be needed in
drought conditions."

[Bill]

Glenn wrote:

>
...

>>>
>>
>> all of which could be determinism, ordainment, or design
>>
> "There are several related reasons why this
> unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without
> evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations
> would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists to
> wrongly deny the reality and importance of evolution by
> natural selection.

Natural selection depends on mutation, descent with
modification. It's this dependance that raises questions.

> The second is that if mutations are not
> random and have some pattern, than that pattern creates a
> micro-direction in evolution. And since biological
> evolution is nothing but micro actions accumulating into
> macro actions, these micro-patterns leave open the
> possibility of macro directions in evolution.

Randomness is another way of saying that something can't be
calculated, something so complex that only the results can
be observed but not the processes that created them. We have
to substitute speculation for the missing data.

> That raises
> all kinds of red flags. If there are evolutionary
> macro-directions, where do they originate? And what are
> the directions? To date, there is little consensus about
> evidence for macro-directions in evolution beyond an
> increase in complexity, but the very notion of evolution
> with any direction is so contrary to current dogma in
> modern evolution theory that it continues to embrace the
> assumption of randomness."
> https://edge.org/response-detail/25264

The modern theories of evolution are based, most
fundamentally, on the notion that nature designs itself, by
itself. It does all this without purpose or direction or
meaning; it's just an infinite series of fortunate accident.
Nature is mindless, without intent, just meaningless events.
This is a basic assumption of the philosophy of Naturalism.

Alas, this philosophy is more essential to theories of
evolution than the data it exists to explain. This
philosophy has to deny any purpose or direction in any
natural process in nature. This obviously places enormous
burdens on those observing direction and purpose because
they are required to ignore it.

When their logic breaks or the observations contradict their
philosophy, they blame it on Creationists. Who else, after
all, is most likely to be disregarded, who else has the
least credibility and is the easiest to dismiss? I've often
thought, what a great dodge: your either accept the
philosophy of naturalism or you won't be taken seriously.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
>>
> ...
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> all of which could be determinism, ordainment, or design
>>>
>> "There are several related reasons why this
>> unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without
>> evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations
>> would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists to
>> wrongly deny the reality and importance of evolution by
>> natural selection.
>
> Natural selection depends on mutation, descent with
> modification. It's this dependance that raises questions.
>
>> The second is that if mutations are not
>> random and have some pattern, than that pattern creates a
>> micro-direction in evolution. And since biological
>> evolution is nothing but micro actions accumulating into
>> macro actions, these micro-patterns leave open the
>> possibility of macro directions in evolution.
>
> Randomness is another way of saying that something can't be
> calculated,

Quite in the contrary, it says that it can be calculated using
statistics and probability theory.

>something so complex that only the results can
> be observed but not the processes that created them.

Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live, and don't play
cards either?

>We have
> to substitute speculation for the missing data.
>
>> That raises
>> all kinds of red flags. If there are evolutionary
>> macro-directions, where do they originate? And what are
>> the directions? To date, there is little consensus about
>> evidence for macro-directions in evolution beyond an
>> increase in complexity, but the very notion of evolution
>> with any direction is so contrary to current dogma in
>> modern evolution theory that it continues to embrace the
>> assumption of randomness."
>> https://edge.org/response-detail/25264
>
> The modern theories of evolution are based, most
> fundamentally, on the notion that nature designs itself, by
> itself. It does all this without purpose or direction or
> meaning; it's just an infinite series of fortunate accident.
> Nature is mindless, without intent, just meaningless events.
> This is a basic assumption of the philosophy of Naturalism.
>
> Alas, this philosophy is more essential to theories of
> evolution than the data it exists to explain. This
> philosophy has to deny any purpose or direction in any
> natural process in nature. This obviously places enormous
> burdens on those observing direction and purpose because
> they are required to ignore it.

Not really - it requires them to come up with a way to turn their
"observation: of direction into meaningful predictions. So far, none of
them suceeded.

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sd8rna5kne7ms1482...@4ax.com...

"Although mutations are thought to occur randomly in the genome, the distribution of mutations that cause biological diversity appears to be highly nonrandom. Gene function, gene structure, and the roles of genes and gene products in genetic networks all influence whether particular mutations will contribute to phenotypic evolution."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184636/

[Glenn]

"Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mlko32$g3$1...@dont-email.me...

Classic example:

"There's nothing in modern evolutionary theory that allows for mutations that arise specifically because they will produce a future benefit. That's why we say that mutations are "random" with respect to outcome. "
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/08/an-example-of-directed-mutation-and.html



So assumedly if some mutations were seen to produce a "future benefit" then modern evolutionary theory, "not allowing it", would be falsified. Scary, very scary.

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:03:44 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

The first sentence you quote is true given that people assume "random"
means uniformly distributed with every possible mutation equally
likely. The distribution is very non-random. More important, it
describes "mutations that cause biological diversity" and those are a
very highly selective subset of all mutations, assuming that
biological diversity really means phenotypic diversity. The selection
of which mutations to look at is where the "highly nonrandom" enters.

That is emphasized by the second sentence which explains that the
diversity is, indeed, phenotypic. It is very true that gene function,
gene structure, and the roles of genes and gene products in network

all influence whether particular mutations will contribute to

phenotypic variation. Most mutations are in fact neutral. Again that
has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the totalilty of
mutations is random. A carefully selected subset of mutations is
highly nonrandom.

The abstract of the paper you cite ends: "The genetic basis of
evolution may be predictable to some extent, and further understanding
of this predictability requires incorporation of the specific
functions and characteristics of genes into evolutionary theory." The
problem is with the phrase "to some extent" and how the relatively
small extent which applies here is picked out from all the mutations.

Suppose I claim that I can predict the stock market and cite all the
cases where I bought low and sold high. But I neglect to mention all
the times I did the reverse and lost my shirt. What I conclude is
that "stock purchases that cause me to increase my profits are highly
non-random. Company structure and the role of market forces influence
whether particular stock trades will contribute to my profit." That
is pretty much saying what you quoted.

[Bill]

Burkhard wrote:

> Bill wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> all of which could be determinism, ordainment, or
>>>> design
>>>>
>>> "There are several related reasons why this
>>> unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without
>>> evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations
>>> would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists to
>>> wrongly deny the reality and importance of evolution by
>>> natural selection.
>>
>> Natural selection depends on mutation, descent with
>> modification. It's this dependance that raises questions.
>>
>>> The second is that if mutations are not
>>> random and have some pattern, than that pattern creates
>>> a micro-direction in evolution. And since biological
>>> evolution is nothing but micro actions accumulating into
>>> macro actions, these micro-patterns leave open the
>>> possibility of macro directions in evolution.
>>
>> Randomness is another way of saying that something can't
>> be calculated,
>
> Quite in the contrary, it says that it can be calculated
> using statistics and probability theory.

Neither of which point to actual physical fact; they are
fuzzy guesses where one picks and chooses what is relevant.

>
>>something so complex that only the results can
>> be observed but not the processes that created them.
>
> Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live, and
> don't play cards either?

Can you show how that has any bearing on anything anyone has
said?

Suppose I am dealt four aces and the king of spades. All I
have is the fact that I hold a winning hand but I don't
know, maybe can't know, how the last shuffle produced that
hand. The number of ways the cards can be arranged to yield
any particular hand is too large to calculate beforehand.
It's why a concept of luck is not only possible but
necessary. How else can we explain the likeliness (or not)
of anything?

Further, the hand dealt or the winning lottery number only
shows that the happy outcome is possible - even if it never
happens again. This kind of thing suggests that current
conditions may have no relevance to what follows. It may be
that things don't change (are predictable) because nothing
interferes, a kind of causal inertia.

Every science and all philosophies and religions are based
on the idea that everything is an effect of some cause;
nothing is random, there are no accidents. There is no
observation of anything existing without a cause. Tracing
that cause is the whole point of thinking about nature and
existence itself.

The idea of a direction to any cause and effect pair is an
entirely subjective intellectual artifact. A direction can
only be inferred after the chain of cause and effect. It is
not a datum to be observed directly like a particle but
rather a phenomenon that reveals itself over time. Being
time dependent, one must have a history of the chain of
cause and effect. With this history one can, hopefully,
predict what should happen next.

People have observed the universe for all of human history
yet were unable to correctly determine what caused much of
anything, until recently. The fact that we now claim
knowledge of the universe means that we can correctly
discern the cause for the effects we observe. This includes
direction like a big bang, inflation, galaxies and planets,
life and intelligent observers - cause to effect, endlessly.

We can reasonably expect all of nature in all its detail to
follow that same path in all its expressions. Direction is
inherent in everything.

Bill

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:an3snapm8fum29bla...@4ax.com...

Then tell the Journal.

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:53:48 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

Why should I tell them anything they already know?
Perhaps I should tell you that you misinterpret or, perhaps,
misrepresent what the words mean.

[Bill]

Peruse any of the resources regarding evolution (in any of
its forms, biological, cosmological , etc.) and notice that
teleological language is unavoidable, maybe inevitable. It
doesn't seem possible to explain present observations
without reference to some kind of innate goal, a purpose to
which development is directed. We have to extrapolate back
to some fortuitous combination of events in a just-so kind
of arrangement.

This is the exact opposite of what naturalistic theories
require which is why it is so vehemently denied. The issue
is not, nor has it ever been, what is observed but rather
how to interpret the observations. The interpretation will
assume a wholly naturalistic (without goal or direction or
purpose) basis for its legitimacy. The assumption is
entirely philosophical.

Bill

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 16:31:08 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Perhaps you failed to notice the important word "specifically". Of
perhaps you think we will overlook it and think what you wrote to be
scary.

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:tu6sna1d4sjt81rtm...@4ax.com...

That's the word that is scary to you, Richard.

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:0s6snalocrh5nc7bj...@4ax.com...

No, you just make a mockery of science.

[Mark Isaak]

Peruse any of the resources teaching evolution and notice that
teleological language is not only avoidable, but that the teacher goes
to some effort to point out that fact. They comment further that
teleological language gets used because it is easier to use, but they
emphasize that such language results from laziness or informality or
thoughtlessness, and it is avoidable.

Have you even read Darwin's _On the Origin of Species_?

>[snip conclusions based on false premise]

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:33:55 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:42:10 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mleoc5$bvh$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> On 6/12/2015 1:45 AM, Dale wrote:
>
>>>> random is another word for acausal
>
>>> In this context, it is not. The mutations are not acausal; they have
>>> chemical and physical causes. They are merely random *with respect to
>>> their effects*. Some are fatal. Some make a non-fatal phenotypic change
>>> in the organism. Most do nothing of note. As far as we can tell, they
>>> are not skewed toward any particular effect. That's all that is meant by
>>> "random" in this context.
>
>>http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/2/140172
>
>Care to identify the specifically relevant content with
>regard to what Greg posted?

Guess not...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:vj1una9e012rhlka9...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:33:55 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:42:10 -0700, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mleoc5$bvh$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>> On 6/12/2015 1:45 AM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>>>> random is another word for acausal
>>
>>>> In this context, it is not. The mutations are not acausal; they have
>>>> chemical and physical causes. They are merely random *with respect to
>>>> their effects*. Some are fatal. Some make a non-fatal phenotypic change
>>>> in the organism. Most do nothing of note. As far as we can tell, they
>>>> are not skewed toward any particular effect. That's all that is meant by
>>>> "random" in this context.
>>
>>>http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/2/140172
>>
>>Care to identify the specifically relevant content with
>>regard to what Greg posted?
>
> Guess not...
> --

Suppose you tell everyone why you think natural selection is causal.

[chris thompson]

On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 12:07:24 AM UTC-4, Dale wrote:
> On 06/13/2015 10:07 PM, RonO wrote:
> > On 6/13/2015 7:17 PM, Dale wrote:
> >> On 06/13/2015 03:21 PM, RonO wrote:
> >>> On 6/12/2015 8:39 AM, Dale wrote:
> >>>> On 06/12/2015 08:05 AM, RonO wrote:
> >>>>> Random in terms of mutations just means that the mutations are
> >>>>> arbitrary
> >>>>
> >>>> arbitrary and random are not the same
> >>>>
> >>> When in reality it makes no difference to any argument that you might
> >>> make, you have no beef.
> >>>
> >>> Demonstrate that the difference matters.
> >>>
> >>> Ron Okimoto
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> what matters is that science is beyond its means, science cannot
> >> describe anything illogical or random, perhaps science is on the
> >> defensive in a battle of wits with religion on those matters
> >>
> >
> > You are obviously wrong. What matters is that what you are going on
> > about does not matter. Demonstrate otherwise. You can't just make
> > stupid claims. You have to at least try to back them up. Really,
> > demonstrate that what you are going on about matters. It is just a
> > simple fact that it does not matter in any way that would help you out.
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
> >
>
> okay, randomness is not a testable hypothesis, so it is not a theory, we

Where did you get the notion that randomness is not a testable hypothesis? Sheesh, tests for randomness are some of the most important tests around. Random number generators (and pseudo-random generators) go through battalions of tests to see if they work. Send off an email to the NSA to see if their cryptanalysts ever heard of such a thing.

Chris

snip

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:28:03 -0400, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Glenn wrote:
>
>>
>...
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> all of which could be determinism, ordainment, or design
>>>
>> "There are several related reasons why this
>> unsubstantiated idea continues to be repeated without
>> evidence. The first is fear that non-random mutations
>> would be misunderstood and twisted by creationists to
>> wrongly deny the reality and importance of evolution by
>> natural selection.
>
>Natural selection depends on mutation, descent with
>modification. It's this dependance that raises questions.
>
>> The second is that if mutations are not
>> random and have some pattern, than that pattern creates a
>> micro-direction in evolution. And since biological
>> evolution is nothing but micro actions accumulating into
>> macro actions, these micro-patterns leave open the
>> possibility of macro directions in evolution.
>
>Randomness is another way of saying that something can't be
>calculated, something so complex that only the results can
>be observed but not the processes that created them. We have
>to substitute speculation for the missing data.

Not necessarily; we can use statistical reasoning under those
circumstances. Or heuristic reasoning, which can be tested as surely
as our models for simpler systems.

[chris thompson]

No, they are not fuzzy at all. Don't conflate not knowing the exact answer with not knowing an exact probability.

>
> >
> >>something so complex that only the results can
> >> be observed but not the processes that created them.
> >
> > Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live, and
> > don't play cards either?
>
> Can you show how that has any bearing on anything anyone has
> said?

Maybe you didn't say what you meant to say, but that's not the readers' problem. It does, in fact, address your point exactly.

>
> Suppose I am dealt four aces and the king of spades. All I
> have is the fact that I hold a winning hand

Don't play much poker, do you? If someone has a straight flush, you lose.

> but I don't
> know, maybe can't know, how the last shuffle produced that
> hand.

No do you need to.

> The number of ways the cards can be arranged to yield
> any particular hand is too large to calculate beforehand.

Bollocks. If you know the number of hands being dealt, you can determine the configuration of those 4 aces and a king in the deck quite easily. In fact, there's only one way to arrange those 5 cards in the deck to produce your hand, given (A) you're specifying the suits of the aces ahead of time, i.e., you know the exact order the cards are dealt to you, and (B) you're playing stud poker, not draw.

> It's why a concept of luck is not only possible but
> necessary. How else can we explain the likeliness (or not)
> of anything?
>

You know what you wrote earlier, about something not having any relevance to what was said? That sentence goes here.

> Further, the hand dealt or the winning lottery number only
> shows that the happy outcome is possible - even if it never
> happens again. This kind of thing suggests that current
> conditions may have no relevance to what follows. It may be
> that things don't change (are predictable) because nothing
> interferes, a kind of causal inertia.

Wow. That's really, really meaningless.

Bollocks again. No science insists that nothing is random. You know, in ecology there are three generalized distributions organisms can exhibit in their habitat: clumped (like herd animals), even (like large, territorial predators), and...wait for it...random!

> there are no accidents. There is no
> observation of anything existing without a cause. Tracing
> that cause is the whole point of thinking about nature and
> existence itself.

Horse patooties. Tell me lightning hits one house and not the one next door because of a cause.

Chris

[Bill]

A model isn't the same thing as the thing modeled; it's an
approximation of of what should happen if the model is
approximately correct.

Bill

[Bill]

chris thompson wrote:

...

>> Neither of which point to actual physical fact; they are
>> fuzzy guesses where one picks and chooses what is
>> relevant.
>
> No, they are not fuzzy at all. Don't conflate not knowing
> the exact answer with not knowing an exact probability.

What is an exact probability and how is it calculated?

>
>>
>> >
>> >>something so complex that only the results can
>> >> be observed but not the processes that created them.
>> >
>> > Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live,
>> > and don't play cards either?
>>
>> Can you show how that has any bearing on anything anyone
>> has said?
>
> Maybe you didn't say what you meant to say, but that's not
> the readers' problem. It does, in fact, address your point
> exactly.
>
>>
>> Suppose I am dealt four aces and the king of spades. All
>> I have is the fact that I hold a winning hand
>
> Don't play much poker, do you? If someone has a straight
> flush, you lose.

The assumption was simply that my hand wins. Since you
prefer exact probabilities, my hand will win most of the
time and that will influence how I bet. The fact a straight
flush is possible has no bearing on the unlikeliness of
someone drawing one. I still win.

>
>> but I don't
>> know, maybe can't know, how the last shuffle produced
>> that hand.
>
> No do you need to.
>
>> The number of ways the cards can be arranged to yield
>> any particular hand is too large to calculate beforehand.
>
> Bollocks. If you know the number of hands being dealt, you
> can determine the configuration of those 4 aces and a king
> in the deck quite easily. In fact, there's only one way to
> arrange those 5 cards in the deck to produce your hand,
> given (A) you're specifying the suits of the aces ahead of
> time, i.e., you know the exact order the cards are dealt
> to you, and (B) you're playing stud poker, not draw.

Notice that I'm referring to the shuffle only. What could
happen is completely unknown until it happens. There are
multitudes of shuffles that yield my hand and still give the
other players a different hand every time. My hand of five
cards still leaves 47 cards to be dealt to everyone else.

>
>> It's why a concept of luck is not only possible but
>> necessary. How else can we explain the likeliness (or
>> not) of anything?
>>
>
> You know what you wrote earlier, about something not
> having any relevance to what was said? That sentence goes
> here.

I've shown that the comment I found irrelevant was in fact,
irrelevant. Probabilities are, by definition, uncertain and
provide, at best, approximations. Since you believe that
there's such a thing as an exact probability, it's probable
that you will continue to misunderstand.

>
>> Further, the hand dealt or the winning lottery number
>> only shows that the happy outcome is possible - even if
>> it never happens again. This kind of thing suggests that
>> current conditions may have no relevance to what follows.
>> It may be that things don't change (are predictable)
>> because nothing interferes, a kind of causal inertia.
>
> Wow. That's really, really meaningless.

Check out the gamblers fallacy and compare it to your
concept of probability.

Bill

[Bill]

Randomness is a concept about the complexity of a
calculation. The more complex the more we resort to
randomness. We know, for instance, that weather has causes
that affect subsequent weather. We don't know everything
about these cause effect relationships or even every
variable involved. The weather is, as far as calculations
are concerned, random. The best we can do is generalize.

The weather is, obviously, not random nor is anything else;
it's just a computational shorthand for something that can't
be precisely computed. Cryptography isn't based on
randomness, it's based on the difficulty of finding a
solution.

Bill

[chris thompson]

Nonsense. The complexity of a calculation has nothing to do with whether a phenomenon is random. Tossing a fair coin is random, but the calculation of probabilities does not get much simpler.

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 7:42:17 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> chris thompson wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Neither of which point to actual physical fact; they are
> >> fuzzy guesses where one picks and chooses what is
> >> relevant.
> >
> > No, they are not fuzzy at all. Don't conflate not knowing
> > the exact answer with not knowing an exact probability.
>
> What is an exact probability and how is it calculated?
>

You're kidding, right?

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>something so complex that only the results can
> >> >> be observed but not the processes that created them.
> >> >
> >> > Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live,
> >> > and don't play cards either?
> >>
> >> Can you show how that has any bearing on anything anyone
> >> has said?
> >
> > Maybe you didn't say what you meant to say, but that's not
> > the readers' problem. It does, in fact, address your point
> > exactly.
> >
> >>
> >> Suppose I am dealt four aces and the king of spades. All
> >> I have is the fact that I hold a winning hand
> >
> > Don't play much poker, do you? If someone has a straight
> > flush, you lose.
>
> The assumption was simply that my hand wins. Since you
> prefer exact probabilities, my hand will win most of the
> time and that will influence how I bet. The fact a straight
> flush is possible has no bearing on the unlikeliness of
> someone drawing one. I still win.
>

My comment was rather tongue-in-cheek, but I wasn't clear on that.

> >
> >> but I don't
> >> know, maybe can't know, how the last shuffle produced
> >> that hand.
> >
> > No do you need to.
> >
> >> The number of ways the cards can be arranged to yield
> >> any particular hand is too large to calculate beforehand.
> >
> > Bollocks. If you know the number of hands being dealt, you
> > can determine the configuration of those 4 aces and a king
> > in the deck quite easily. In fact, there's only one way to
> > arrange those 5 cards in the deck to produce your hand,
> > given (A) you're specifying the suits of the aces ahead of
> > time, i.e., you know the exact order the cards are dealt
> > to you, and (B) you're playing stud poker, not draw.
>
> Notice that I'm referring to the shuffle only. What could
> happen is completely unknown until it happens. There are
> multitudes of shuffles that yield my hand and still give the
> other players a different hand every time. My hand of five
> cards still leaves 47 cards to be dealt to everyone else.
>

Correct; the mechanics of shuffling are probably beyond computation.

Probably.

> >
> >> It's why a concept of luck is not only possible but
> >> necessary. How else can we explain the likeliness (or
> >> not) of anything?
> >>
> >
> > You know what you wrote earlier, about something not
> > having any relevance to what was said? That sentence goes
> > here.
>
> I've shown that the comment I found irrelevant was in fact,
> irrelevant. Probabilities are, by definition, uncertain and
> provide, at best, approximations. Since you believe that
> there's such a thing as an exact probability, it's probable
> that you will continue to misunderstand.

So you don't think that getting heads when tossing a fair coin has an exact probability of 50%? Or getting a six when tossing a fair, standard die has an exact probability of 1/6?

If that's what you think, I'm not the one that's misunderstanding probability.

> >
> >> Further, the hand dealt or the winning lottery number
> >> only shows that the happy outcome is possible - even if
> >> it never happens again. This kind of thing suggests that
> >> current conditions may have no relevance to what follows.
> >> It may be that things don't change (are predictable)
> >> because nothing interferes, a kind of causal inertia.
> >
> > Wow. That's really, really meaningless.
>
> Check out the gamblers fallacy and compare it to your
> concept of probability.
>

My concept of probability avoids the gambler's fallacy quite well. Just because I toss a coin 10 times and get 10 heads does not mean the chances of getting tails on the eleventh toss have gone up. I know that the chances are still 1/2. Exactly.

> Bill

[chris thompson]

On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 7:52:16 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> chris thompson wrote:
>

snip

> >
> > Where did you get the notion that randomness is not a
> > testable hypothesis? Sheesh, tests for randomness are some
> > of the most important tests around. Random number
> > generators (and pseudo-random generators) go through
> > battalions of tests to see if they work. Send off an email
> > to the NSA to see if their cryptanalysts ever heard of
> > such a thing.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> Randomness is a concept about the complexity of a
> calculation. The more complex the more we resort to
> randomness. We know, for instance, that weather has causes
> that affect subsequent weather. We don't know everything
> about these cause effect relationships or even every
> variable involved. The weather is, as far as calculations
> are concerned, random. The best we can do is generalize.
>
> The weather is, obviously, not random nor is anything else;
> it's just a computational shorthand for something that can't
> be precisely computed.

Isolated the following for emphasis

> Cryptography isn't based on
> randomness, it's based on the difficulty of finding a
> solution.

Wow. The hits just keep on coming.

Chris

[Bill]

chris thompson wrote:

...

Probabilities assume a knowledge of the variables. A coin
has two sides so it seems easy to compute a probability of a
coin toss. It seems simple enough. But a probable outcome
isn't known until after the toss making it merely a
confirmation instead of a prediction. Probabilities give us
a sense of control over complexity, but it's an illusion.
Nothing is certain until it happens so our predictions only
have value after the fact.

Bill

[Bill]

Feel free to provide your corrections

Bill

[Bill]

It may be that we can compute every possible combination of
variables in a coin toss and arrive at the exact outcome
every time. This is what we would expect from perfect
information and, from this, conclude that no part of a coin
toss is random.

From this little thought problem, we might further conclude
that we call something random only because our information
is incomplete. This incompleteness is beyond our ability to
resolve. We seek intellectual refuge in the belief that
incompleteness is the computational equivalent of
randomness.

Bill

[Burkhard]

These "fuzz guesses" allow insurance companies to calculate rational
premiums, lottery organisers to prize tickets, the Tokio underground to
run trains on time and your washing machine, if you have a new model, to
achieve the same degree of cleanliness with much less energy or
detergent than previously thought possible. with other words, they work.

>
>>
>>> something so complex that only the results can
>>> be observed but not the processes that created them.
>>
>> Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live, and
>> don't play cards either?
>
> Can you show how that has any bearing on anything anyone has
> said?

When I watch a lottery draw, I observe the process that creates the
outcome, du'h

>
> Suppose I am dealt four aces and the king of spades. All I
> have is the fact that I hold a winning hand but I don't
> know, maybe can't know, how the last shuffle produced that
> hand.

But you observed the process- something you claimed can;t be done.

>The number of ways the cards can be arranged to yield
> any particular hand is too large to calculate beforehand.
> It's why a concept of luck is not only possible but
> necessary. How else can we explain the likeliness (or not)
> of anything?
>
> Further, the hand dealt or the winning lottery number only
> shows that the happy outcome is possible - even if it never
> happens again. This kind of thing suggests that current
> conditions may have no relevance to what follows. It may be
> that things don't change (are predictable) because nothing
> interferes, a kind of causal inertia.

no idea what that is supposed to mean

Not really, no. The point of science is to make sufficiently good
prediction about future events that we can control the better than
without such a prediction.

>
> The idea of a direction to any cause and effect pair is an
> entirely subjective intellectual artifact. A direction can
> only be inferred after the chain of cause and effect.

Ah, radical epistemological skepticism. Most people grow out of it after
puberty.

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/14/2015 6:48 PM, Bill wrote:

>> Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live, and
>> >don't play cards either?

> Can you show how that has any bearing on anything anyone has
> said?

You don't understand the use of the term "random" as used to describe
mutations.

Where I live, the winning lottery numbers are drawn using a contraption
full of numbered ping-pong balls. I'm sure you've seen them, but look it
up if you haven't.

You seem to be arguing that the trajectories of each ball (and
ultimately which ones rise to the top of each chute) is entirely
controlled by known principles of Newtonian Mechanics; thus, but for the
very large number of variables, there is nothing random, nothing
conceptually different from computing the path of a cannonball.

That, to my knowledge, is true. And irrelevant.

What matters here is the randomness - and thus "fairness" - of the
result. And it does seem to be random. Perhaps we could find a way to
make it less so; by weighting some of the balls, or making some slightly
bigger or smaller than the rest. But if the balls really are essentially
identical, the machine should produce a random result.

What is more, we can test that result, even if we know nothing of the
process that produced the numbers. Run the machine over and over. See if
certain numbers come up more often than others. Counting is all that is
needed, albeit for a great number of repetitions.

When people use the term "random mutations", they do not mean that the
process by which the mutations come to be is fundamentally inscrutable.
Like the balls, there are known causes, and presumably some yet unknown,
that involve chemical reactions and radiation effects.

Further, standard biology does not claim that the results (unlike the
lottery) are even mathematically random; meaning that every conceivable
outcome has an equal probability. It is known that they do not.

What is claimed is that the *results* - like the lottery - seem to be
random with respect to the phenomenon we are interested in. In the
lottery, that's "who wins". In biology, that's "how 'useful' is the new,
mutated result" as compared with the unmutated one.

That too, we can test for, even if we had no knowledge of how mutations
are produced. Again, by counting. The first and most obvious thing to
leap out of the data is that the vast majority of mutations seem not to
affect the fitness of the creature at all. Most in fact do not seem to
change any functions or characteristics. So, as a first approximation,
"randomness with respect to fitness" seems like a reasonable bet.

But could there be a subtle "signal" to be found amidst the very great
amount of neutral "noise"? To my (very limited) knowledge, no test has
yet shown such a "bias". Tests have been done to see if bacteria
subjected to a toxin produce more of the "saving" mutations than a
population not subject to the toxin. [here the biologists among us can
correct or refine my fuzzy recollection if necessary] So far that does
not seem to be the case, although an overall increase in the mutation
rate has been observed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:00:20 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:vj1una9e012rhlka9...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:33:55 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 07:42:10 -0700, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>>>"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mleoc5$bvh$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>> On 6/12/2015 1:45 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> random is another word for acausal
>>>
>>>>> In this context, it is not. The mutations are not acausal; they have
>>>>> chemical and physical causes. They are merely random *with respect to
>>>>> their effects*. Some are fatal. Some make a non-fatal phenotypic change
>>>>> in the organism. Most do nothing of note. As far as we can tell, they
>>>>> are not skewed toward any particular effect. That's all that is meant by
>>>>> "random" in this context.

>>>>http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/1/2/140172

>>>Care to identify the specifically relevant content with
>>>regard to what Greg posted?

>> Guess not...

>Suppose you tell everyone why you think natural selection is causal.

So, your answer is "No, I won't"? OK; no surprise.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:29:52 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
<chris.li...@gmail.com>:

>On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 7:42:17 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> chris thompson wrote:

>> >> Neither of which point to actual physical fact; they are
>> >> fuzzy guesses where one picks and chooses what is
>> >> relevant.

>> > No, they are not fuzzy at all. Don't conflate not knowing
>> > the exact answer with not knowing an exact probability.

>> What is an exact probability and how is it calculated?

>You're kidding, right?

Unfortunately, no, he's not. Bill, who has obviously never
taken a stats course, considers statistical data to be akin
to reading the entrails of goats, as his "fuzzy guesses
where one picks and chooses what is relevant" makes crystal
clear. But see below.

Yep, and there's your response to his question.

[Bill]

Burkhard wrote:

...

>>
>>>
>>>> something so complex that only the results can
>>>> be observed but not the processes that created them.
>>>
>>> Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live,
>>> and don't play cards either?
>>
>> Can you show how that has any bearing on anything anyone
>> has said?
>
> When I watch a lottery draw, I observe the process that
> creates the outcome, du'h
>
>>
>> Suppose I am dealt four aces and the king of spades. All
>> I have is the fact that I hold a winning hand but I don't
>> know, maybe can't know, how the last shuffle produced
>> that hand.
>
> But you observed the process- something you claimed can;t
> be done.

The opposite: we see the process but we can't predict its
outcome.

There are 52 unique cards in a standard deck so regardless
of how the deck is shuffled or how the cards are dealt, each
hand will have 5 unique cards (playing poker). We can say
with great certainty that each player has 5 unique cards,
this is trivial. We can't say who has which cards which is
what making betting on them the whole point of the game.

Knowing the number and value of all the variables (52) does
not tell us the outcome of shuffling and dealing them -
prediction is not possible. It appears that randomness is
somehow embedded in the outcome but that's not possible
either. Observation of a shuffle tells us nothing, predicts
nothing until the shuffle is finished.

Our knowledge of fact comes after it has become a fact, not
from any prediction of it.

Bill

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> something so complex that only the results can
>>>>> be observed but not the processes that created them.
>>>>
>>>> Really? They don't show lottery draws where you live,
>>>> and don't play cards either?
>>>
>>> Can you show how that has any bearing on anything anyone
>>> has said?
>>
>> When I watch a lottery draw, I observe the process that
>> creates the outcome, du'h
>>
>>>
>>> Suppose I am dealt four aces and the king of spades. All
>>> I have is the fact that I hold a winning hand but I don't
>>> know, maybe can't know, how the last shuffle produced
>>> that hand.
>>
>> But you observed the process- something you claimed can;t
>> be done.
>
> The opposite: we see the process but we can't predict its
> outcome.

Well, here is what you wrote:
"something so complex that only the results can
>>>>> be observed but not the processes that created them."

To me that says: the processes that created them can;t be observed. Yet
we obviously do.

>
> There are 52 unique cards in a standard deck so regardless
> of how the deck is shuffled or how the cards are dealt, each
> hand will have 5 unique cards (playing poker). We can say
> with great certainty that each player has 5 unique cards,
> this is trivial. We can't say who has which cards which is
> what making betting on them the whole point of the game.

But we know our own cards, and we know what combinations carry what
values, so even if we don't know what hand the other guy holds, we can
calculate the chances that it is higher or lower than others, and bet
accordingly. That;s why it is also a game of skill, and why there are
better and worse players

>
> Knowing the number and value of all the variables (52) does
> not tell us the outcome of shuffling and dealing them -
> prediction is not possible. It appears that randomness is
> somehow embedded in the outcome but that's not possible
> either. Observation of a shuffle tells us nothing, predicts
> nothing until the shuffle is finished.

Observation of the shuffle tells us a lot - the possible outcomes, for
one things, and if it is really a reliable way to create a random process.

>
> Our knowledge of fact comes after it has become a fact, not
> from any prediction of it.

Why do you think knowing the outcome of a specific hand is the only
relevant thing in this context?

>
> Bill
>

[Bill]

My choice of words is unfortunate. In this specific case
I've referring to shuffling cards as the process. We can
observe the shuffling but we cannot (unless we cheat) see
the result until they are dealt.

In this usage the process is the shuffling of the cards
which is not the same as predicting the outcome. Dealing the
cards also adds a level of complexity (how many hands are
dealt, who folds, who discards what, etc.). We see the
shuffle (process) next we see the deal and finally we see
the winning hand revealed. The first step doesn't predict
the last.

To belabor the analogy a little further, we observe every
step up to the revealing of the winning hand without being
able to predict the winning hand. How the cards are arranged
prior to being dealt is a mystery; we can't see the process.
When the winning hand is played, we see the result of the
process.

...

>
> Observation of the shuffle tells us a lot - the possible
> outcomes, for one things, and if it is really a reliable
> way to create a random process.

There's nothing random in the shuffling of cards, everything
is entirely deterministic, we just can't calculate the
outcome. Because of this inability to determine the outcome,
we call the process random.

>
>>
>> Our knowledge of fact comes after it has become a fact,
>> not from any prediction of it.
>
> Why do you think knowing the outcome of a specific hand is
> the only relevant thing in this context?

That is the point, is it not. Why make 52 uniquely designed
cards if we don't care about their arrangement?

Bill

[Burkhard]

Why do you think it can't be both?

> we just can't calculate the
> outcome. Because of this inability to determine the outcome,
> we call the process random.

That directly contradicts your sentence before that one.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Our knowledge of fact comes after it has become a fact,
>>> not from any prediction of it.
>>
>> Why do you think knowing the outcome of a specific hand is
>> the only relevant thing in this context?
>
> That is the point, is it not. Why make 52 uniquely designed
> cards if we don't care about their arrangement?

Eh, no? At least it is not the point i was making
>
> Bill
>

[Bill]

Burkhard wrote:

...

>>
>>>
>>> Observation of the shuffle tells us a lot - the possible
>>> outcomes, for one things, and if it is really a reliable
>>> way to create a random process.
>>
>> There's nothing random in the shuffling of cards,
>> everything is entirely deterministic,
>
> Why do you think it can't be both?

It's deterministic because we know that every effect has a
cause. It's random because we don't know all the causes and
cannot therefore, determine the outcome. This tells us
nothing about reality, just our ability to grasp it. We call
something random because we can't predict its outcome. We
know that the final arrangement of any process is determined
by incremental steps, we just don't know what they are.


Bill

[Burkhard]

Bill wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Observation of the shuffle tells us a lot - the possible
>>>> outcomes, for one things, and if it is really a reliable
>>>> way to create a random process.
>>>
>>> There's nothing random in the shuffling of cards,
>>> everything is entirely deterministic,
>>
>> Why do you think it can't be both?
>
> It's deterministic because we know that every effect has a
> cause. It's random because we don't know all the causes and
> cannot therefore, determine the outcome. This tells us
> nothing about reality, just our ability to grasp it.

Why do you think the two are different? Everything we know about reality
is constrained by our ability to grasp it - something we can describe
probabilistically, other things we can describe causally, different
constraints, same principle.

>We call
> something random because we can't predict its outcome. We
> know that the final arrangement of any process is determined
> by incremental steps, we just don't know what they are.

Now read this sentence very carefully, and then think about why it is a)
perfectly correct and b) undermines all the problem-mirages you ave
tried to build up about the ToE

>
>
> Bill
>

[Bill]

The ToE depends on mutations and, since there are so many
variables involved, they call them random. They aren't. It
seems likely that randomness doesn't exist. From this I
conclude that any resort to randomness is a cop out that
gives the appearance of knowledge; it's a disguise for
ignorance.

It would be more useful to admit that no one knows why some
things happen and others don't. Scientists probably know
that but the legions of non-scientists apparently don't.
People invoke probabilities to give the impression that what
is unknown can be quantified, but if so, it wouldn't be
unknown.

The thread that connects what is known to what is not known
is hypothesis. Hypothesis tells what should be known if we
knew it and, as evidence, cites what should be probable if
probabilities could be calculated. It's all very murky, a
veritable linguistic swamp of amorphous definitions. Other
than that, all is well.

Bill

[William Morse]

On 06/12/2015 01:45 AM, Dale wrote:
> random is another word for acausal

> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/random#Adjective
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acausal

No, at least as I understand it, random means that there is no way to
create an algorithm to predict it - we can't tell if the Turing machine
that prints it out will ever complete its task. That doesn't mean it is
not determined in the sense of being caused. In other words, determinism
is not the same as predictability.

I suggest you read "Godel, Escher, and Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter, if
you haven't already done so. Even if it doesn't change your mine about
the topic, it is a very enjoyable read.
> determinism is a philosophy of causality
> "Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in physics
> is known as cause-and-effect."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/causality
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> its an either/or choice, you can't have determinism and genetic drift,
> or anything else considered random


> random seed distributions are not really random
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed
>

[chris thompson]

Let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You are talking about computing every possible influence on the coin when it's tossed to predict if it will come up heads or tails, right?

> From this little thought problem, we might further conclude
> that we call something random only because our information
> is incomplete. This incompleteness is beyond our ability to
> resolve. We seek intellectual refuge in the belief that
> incompleteness is the computational equivalent of
> randomness.
>
> Bill

You might conclude that. You'd be terrible mistaken, but you might conclude that.

Tell you what, why don't you read a statistics textbook after you're done with the population biology text?

Chris

[chris thompson]

Why bother? You don't believe anything anyone tells you anyway.

Chris

[Bill]

You still haven't explained how cryptography depends on
randomness. But, since you mentioned statistics, consider
that any statistic implies a set of member elements. Any
analysis will necessarily exclude everything outside the
set. This means that the analysis is limited.

Even if we combine sets of statistics, we still only have a
set of sets and there's always going to be excluded sets.
Statistically, 50% of all possible elements are excluded
from the other 50%.

This forces all statistically analysis to resolve to the
average: 50-50. The best we can hope for is something near
the average meaning that statistics are no better than
guesses. Because statistics are expressed numerically they
appear scientific but a coin toss is as informative.

Bill

[Glenn]

"William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:mlqi1...@news4.newsguy.com...

> On 06/12/2015 01:45 AM, Dale wrote:
>> random is another word for acausal
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/random#Adjective
>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acausal
>
> No, at least as I understand it, random means that there is no way to
> create an algorithm to predict it - we can't tell if the Turing machine
> that prints it out will ever complete its task. That doesn't mean it is
> not determined in the sense of being caused. In other words, determinism
> is not the same as predictability.
>

"Moreover, selection acts on quantum acausal mutations that are heritable variation."
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/04/02/149851678/npr-beyond-darwin-niche-creation-and-creative-evolution


[mutation] "Gould insists that it is not causal:"
https://books.google.com/books?id=-CqdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA65&dq=gould+insists+it+is+not+causal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIzs2_0O-VxgIVkjiICh0C5ACW#v=onepage&q=gould%20insists%20it%20is%20not%20causal&f=false


Your response makes mincemeat of "random mutation".

[Burkhard]

see e.g. Ahlswede, Rudolf, and Imre Csiszár. "Common randomness in
information theory and cryptography. Part I: secret sharing." IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory 39.4 (1993).

Or, reduced t bullet points, this introductory course.

from slide 6
Unlike many other examples, randomness essential for security!
Secret keys have to be random – If not, everything is easy

But, since you mentioned statistics, consider
> that any statistic implies a set of member elements. Any
> analysis will necessarily exclude everything outside the
> set. This means that the analysis is limited.

Every analysis is limited. The purpose of every theory is allow you tu
jump from the limited number of things observed to all things that share
certain properties under interest.

[Pete K.]

If it's the word "random" tripping you up then fine, drop it. It
doesn't matter if mutations are truly random or not; the point is they
are arbitrary with respect to fitness of an organism in a given
environment.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/16/15 8:08 PM, Bill wrote:
> [...]

> Even if we combine sets of statistics, we still only have a
> set of sets and there's always going to be excluded sets.
> Statistically, 50% of all possible elements are excluded
> from the other 50%.
>
> This forces all statistically analysis to resolve to the
> average: 50-50. The best we can hope for is something near
> the average meaning that statistics are no better than
> guesses. Because statistics are expressed numerically they
> appear scientific but a coin toss is as informative.

Obviously you know less than nothing about statistics. Here is a very
brief introduction.

Suppose I have developed a new mosquito repellant, and I want to know if
it actually works. I design an experiment: 30 different people put
their arm in a cage of hungry mosquitoes for two minutes, 10 each in
three different conditions: one with my new repellant, one with the
leading competitor's repellant, and one with no repellant. I count
mosquito bites.

The results are:
My repellant: 6.6 bites average
Other repellant: 7.1 bites
No repellant: 14.7 bites

But that does not actually answer my question, because there is quite a
bit of variation in the numbers. One person using my repellant, for
example, got 12 bites, which was more than the bites on four people who
used none at all. Is is possible that my results are not due to
repellant effects, but just to other unknown vagaries of mosquito
preferences -- i.e., to chance?

So what I do next is use a well-studied statistical method (probably an
ANOVA in this case), and see if the differences are statistically
significant. What I then find is that it is very likely that my
repellant works (less than 1% chance that chance alone explains its
difference from no repellant), but only a 65% chance that it truly beats
my competitor, which is not very convincing. I need to do more tests
(with more subjects) and/or more research before going to market.


--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[chris thompson]

So, is the above correct?

> >
> >> From this little thought problem, we might further
> >> conclude that we call something random only because our
> >> information is incomplete. This incompleteness is beyond
> >> our ability to resolve. We seek intellectual refuge in
> >> the belief that incompleteness is the computational
> >> equivalent of randomness.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > You might conclude that. You'd be terrible mistaken, but
> > you might conclude that.
> >
> > Tell you what, why don't you read a statistics textbook
> > after you're done with the population biology text?
> >
> > Chris
>
> You still haven't explained how cryptography depends on
> randomness.

I actually referred to _tests_ for randomness. But, after you get through your population biology and statistics tests, work on this:

Gustafson et al. 1996. Randomness measures related to subset occurrence. In: Cryptography: policy and algorithms. Springer Verlag.

> But, since you mentioned statistics, consider
> that any statistic implies a set of member elements. Any
> analysis will necessarily exclude everything outside the
> set. This means that the analysis is limited.

Are you saying this is a bad thing? The set of possible results in flipping a coin is limited to heads and tails. Are you suggesting something else should be considered?

>
> Even if we combine sets of statistics, we still only have a
> set of sets and there's always going to be excluded sets.
> Statistically, 50% of all possible elements are excluded
> from the other 50%.
>

Wow. I think that "50%" should be tested for the presence of fecal coliform bacteria, given where you pulled it from.

> This forces all statistically analysis to resolve to the
> average: 50-50.

There just aren't any words to describe this. I quake, I shiver and tremble! Where on earth did you obtain distilled concentrated Essence of McCoy? And aren't you aware that posts like this have been banned by the Geneva Convention as Weapons of Math Destruction?

Chris

[chris thompson]

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 1:47:14 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:29:52 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by chris thompson
> <chris.li...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Monday, June 15, 2015 at 7:42:17 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> >> chris thompson wrote:
>
> >> >> Neither of which point to actual physical fact; they are
> >> >> fuzzy guesses where one picks and chooses what is
> >> >> relevant.
>
> >> > No, they are not fuzzy at all. Don't conflate not knowing
> >> > the exact answer with not knowing an exact probability.
>
> >> What is an exact probability and how is it calculated?
>
> >You're kidding, right?
>
> Unfortunately, no, he's not. Bill, who has obviously never
> taken a stats course, considers statistical data to be akin
> to reading the entrails of goats, as his "fuzzy guesses
> where one picks and chooses what is relevant" makes crystal
> clear. But see below.
>

Not only never taken a stats course. I'd love to get into a high stakes poker game with him. Did you see his more recent post? Evidently, you have a 50% chance of drawing three of a kind when holding a pair, and you also have a 50% chance of drawing an inside straight. (Bill: I know it won't matter a damn, but my conscience informs me that I have to tell you this: all card games, including five card draw poker, are considered "sampling without replacement.")

Chris

[chris thompson]

A "probable outcome" isn't known until after the toss? Do you even consider what you write, or are there some odd parasites in your fingers that make you hit the keyboard in such a bizarre fashion?

There are TWO POSSIBLE OUTCOMES in a coin toss, given a fair coin. They have equal probabilities. Once you toss the coin you know the outcome of that particular trial. But you^H^H anyone who's looked at a coin knew the possible outcomes before the toss.

> Probabilities give us
> a sense of control over complexity, but it's an illusion.

The only illusion around here is you thinking you know what you're talking about.

> Nothing is certain until it happens so our predictions only
> have value after the fact.
>

Really? It's not certain that if I toss a fair coin fairly, it's going to be heads or tails?

Chris

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mlqrpr$5fr$1...@dont-email.me>

Well, you could start with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographically_secure_pseudorandom_number_generator

> But, since you mentioned statistics, consider that any statistic
> implies a set of member elements. Any analysis will necessarily
> exclude everything outside the set. This means that the analysis is
> limited.

Indeed. And there are special statistical methods to handle the fact
that you are examining a sample, not an entire (potentially infinite)
population.

Isn't it amazing how professionals in there field somehow manage to
identify all the obvious flaws in their techniques, and work out ways
to mitigate them.

And isn't it amazing how amateurs assume that they are so much better
at identifying those flaws than the professionals.

> Even if we combine sets of statistics, we still only have a
> set of sets and there's always going to be excluded sets.
> Statistically, 50% of all possible elements are excluded
> from the other 50%.
>
> This forces all statistically analysis to resolve to the
> average: 50-50.

And no doubt you will be able to justify that claim.

Or alternatively, you could just admit that you're blowing smoke out of
the orifice where the sun don't shine.

> The best we can hope for is something near
> the average meaning that statistics are no better than
> guesses. Because statistics are expressed numerically they
> appear scientific but a coin toss is as informative.

Yeah. Obviously, insurance companies can never make any profit, as they
can't come up with anything better than a guess as to how long someone
will live, or how frequently they will crash a car, or anything like
that. Bill's just proved it.

Or alternatively, Bill's just blowing smoke again.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Burkhard]

Don't you see how you contradict yourself here, again? They are
deterministic, and they are random. Random means nothing else but that
we need the tools of statistics to describe the process and estimate
possible outcomes.

It
> seems likely that randomness doesn't exist. From this I
> conclude that any resort to randomness is a cop out that
> gives the appearance of knowledge; it's a disguise for
> ignorance.

And again a direct contradiction to what you argued before. If you were
consistent for at least two posts the above means that you should
consider weather forecasting fraud, you should think that every poker
player is equally likely to win, that the setting of insurance premiums
by actuarians is based on magic

> It would be more useful to admit that no one knows why some
> things happen and others don't.

We know why someone won the lottery - because their numbers were drawn.
That is a perfectly valid explanation that contains a lot of useful
information. That we don't know exactly how a microscopic unevenness of
the machine caused the ball to be selected doesn't change the fact that
this is a perfectly good explanation that rules out, in a testable way,
several other explanations (e.g. that the machine was rigged, or that he
got the money even though his number hadn't been selected,

Similarly, if we want to find out if miners in a collapsed mine are in
danger from firedamp, we can calculate the behavior of the gas with
sufficient precision to make this call - even though we can't (and have
no real interest in) the movement of individual gas particles that cause
the movement, ultimately.

Of if economists try to predict the size of the pension liability in a
few decades time, knowing that the average family has 2.1 children (even
if no individual family does)is sufficient for sufficiently accurate
models - nobody needs to trace back all the random events that caused
YOU personally to have or have not a child.

Scientists probably know
> that but the legions of non-scientists apparently don't.
> People invoke probabilities to give the impression that what
> is unknown can be quantified, but if so, it wouldn't be
> unknown.

That was a reasonable position to take - prior to the 16th century, when
Gerolamo Cardano laid the foundations for probability theory. Ever
since, we can indeed, better and better every generation, quantify the
unknown. We now have the tools for this, and t impacts on you in a
million ways every day - from the probabilistic evidence that puts a
murderer away on the strength of a DNA match to the way your insurance
premium are calculated, to the question if you should take your umbrella
with you.

>
> The thread that connects what is known to what is not known
> is hypothesis. Hypothesis tells what should be known if we
> knew it and, as evidence, cites what should be probable if
> probabilities could be calculated. It's all very murky,

Not for people who have an exotic and alien thing called "education" it
isn't

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/17/2015 12:20 AM, Glenn wrote:
>
> "William Morse" <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:mlqi1...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> On 06/12/2015 01:45 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> random is another word for acausal
>>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/random#Adjective
>>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acausal
>>
>> No, at least as I understand it, random means that there is no way to
>> create an algorithm to predict it - we can't tell if the Turing machine
>> that prints it out will ever complete its task. That doesn't mean it is
>> not determined in the sense of being caused. In other words, determinism
>> is not the same as predictability.
>>
> "Moreover, selection acts on quantum acausal mutations that are heritable variation."
> http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/04/02/149851678/npr-beyond-darwin-niche-creation-and-creative-evolution

Surprise us: Tell us what you think that means, and why it is relevant
to the discussion.

> [mutation] "Gould insists that it is not causal:"
> https://books.google.com/books?id=-CqdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA65&dq=gould+insists+it+is+not+causal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIzs2_0O-VxgIVkjiICh0C5ACW#v=onepage&q=gould%20insists%20it%20is%20not%20causal&f=false

Surprise us: Tell us what you think that means, and why it is relevant
to the discussion, especially in the light of this quote from the same
page: "Gould agrees with Dawkins that variation is introduced into the
gene pool through random mutations on the genetic level".

[Glenn]

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mlsf2q$56k$1...@dont-email.me...

Nice ad hom and stupidity.