Great New AronRa video, Evolution is a fact

[HMS_Beagle]

But you already agree that individual rolls are random. So you agree with me, why do you keep arguing?

Species don't evolve by only random genetic variations. The process also includes environment-driven nonrandom selection. You've only had that explained to you a dozen times now. But by all means hang on to your willful ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation of the actual science. Make all the YECs proud!

[seer]

Species don't evolve by only random genetic variations. The process also includes environment-driven nonrandom selection. You've only had that explained to you a dozen times now. But by all means hang on to your willful ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation of the actual science. Make all the YECs proud!

Stop being an idiot HMS. Go back to my beetle example, I included the environment and showed that SPECIFIC OUTCOMES are still chance driven:

1. We have a population of brown beetles.

2. A mutation spreads the population causing some of the beetles to be green.

3. The green beetles are better camouflaged than the brown.

4. The birds eats more of the brown beetles.

5. Therefore the green beetles survive better and thrive. (that is one outcome).

But the fact that the green beetle survived or was selected is too the result of chance, because:

1. The beetles happen to find themselves in a niche where the green beetle was better camouflaged than the brown. They just could as well found themselves in a niche where the brown beetle was better camouflaged (a different outcome).

2. Or they could have found themselves in a niche where camouflaged didn't make much difference so the birds ate them fairly equally (a different outcome).

3. Or they could have found themselves in a niche where the birds that like to eat these beetles did not exist (a different outcome).

So back to the first example, outcome #5, the green beetle surviving. That outcome is only possible because of the specific condition in the niche, but those very conditions are only there by chance. If there were different conditions we would have different outcomes. So chance is driving outcomes even when selection is present.

[HMS_Beagle]

Stop being an idiot HMS. Go back to my beetle example, I included the environment and showed that SPECIFIC OUTCOMES are still chance driven:

Stop being a word-game playing moron. Or keep it up and keep getting the ridicule you deserve. Your choice.

[klaus54]

Individual rolls are random. Long term patterns are very predictable.

Why are you still playing these childish word games?

When I bake rolls no two are exactly the same. Chance or design?

K54

[phank]

But you already agree that individual rolls are random. So you agree with me, why do you keep arguing?

Because you have made the claim that evolution is entirely a random process, without any non-random components anywhere to be found. This claim is simply false. Random mutations alone are insufficient for evolution to occur. Selection alone is insufficient as well. The process requires BOTH random and nonrandom components. You have not yet given any indication that you understand this. The OP pointed out that when it comes to evolution, neither aspect alone is sufficient, you need a combination.

What people have been trying to get you to understand is that it is this combination that makes evolution work at all. You know that sodium alone is toxic, and chlorine alone is toxic, but together they make common table salt. Combinations make qualitative differences. When I keep pointing out that casinos can predict their take to within 1%, and you keep insisting that there is "nothing predictable about the outcomes", we clearly do not agree. I'll go with the casinos - they didn't build Las Vegas by random guessing.

[klaus54]

Example of a probability distribution

Let's the heights of adult male !Kung San are normally distributed with mean = 132 cm and standard deviation = 6 cm.

Pick one man at random. (Note the random word.)

The probability that his height is between 132 cm and 138 cm is 34%.

The probability this his height exceeds 138 cm is 16%.

The probabilities of choosing individual heights at random are not equal (not a uniform probability distribution).

=======
Not think of selecting a man at random as the genome of an organism.

Think of the probability distribution as measuring the likelihood of reproducing.

Does this help?

K54

[phank]

Example of a probability distribution

Let's the heights of adult male !Kung San are normally distributed with mean = 132 cm and standard deviation = 6 cm.

Pick one man at random. (Note the random word.)

The probability that his height is between 132 cm and 138 cm is 34%.

The probability this his height exceeds 138 cm is 16%.

The probabilities of choosing individual heights at random are not equal (not a uniform probability distribution).

=======
Not think of selecting a man at random as the genome of an organism.

Think of the probability distribution as measuring the likelihood of reproducing.

Does this help?

K54

Let's slow down a little. You specify a standard deviation of 6cm. To convert to more familiar terms, these men average 4 feet 4 inches tall, with a standard deviation of about 2 1/2 inches. This means that if we look at heights between about 4' 1.5" and 4' 6.5", we are looking at about 68% of the adult men. This means, given the normal distribution, that about 32% of men are either taller or shorter than this range, with about 16% in each group. In other words, about 2/3 of the men are in the "normal" range, with about 1/6th being shorter and 1/6th being taller.

Now, as I understand it. the probability of a random man's hight being between 132 and 135 cm is 34%. The probability of his height being between 129cm and 132cm is also 34%. I think you got this wrong.

But beside all that, I think your central point that a normal poisson distribution is not a flat distribution has been lost here. I think you need to describe a flat distribution before you start getting into quadratics, poisson distributions, skewness and kurtosis. I suspect people lose at craps because they simply do not know that 7 is more common than 3.

[klaus54]

Let's slow down a little. You specify a standard deviation of 6cm. To convert to more familiar terms, these men average 4 feet 4 inches tall, with a standard deviation of about 2 1/2 inches. This means that if we look at heights between about 4' 1.5" and 4' 6.5", we are looking at about 68% of the adult men. This means, given the normal distribution, that about 32% of men are either taller or shorter than this range, with about 16% in each group. In other words, about 2/3 of the men are in the "normal" range, with about 1/6th being shorter and 1/6th being taller.

Now, as I understand it. the probability of a random man's hight being between 132 and 135 cm is 34%. The probability of his height being between 129cm and 132cm is also 34%. I think you got this wrong.

But beside all that, I think your central point that a normal poisson distribution is not a flat distribution has been lost here. I think you need to describe a flat distribution before you start getting into quadratics, poisson distributions, skewness and kurtosis. I suspect people lose at craps because they simply do not know that 7 is more common than 3.

I made up the numbers. I knew that "bushmen" were short but not that short!

Assuming a normal distribution of heights, X, (which is easiest to use and likely fairly accurate):

If the mean = median = 132 then P[X >= 132] = 50%. Since standard deviation = 6, then P[126 < X < 138] = 68%, so by symmetry, P[132 < X < 138] = 34% and P[X>138] = 16%

Yes, the point is the probabilities across a random selection from the population are not uniform.

Randomness + non-randomness.

This should be easy enough for seer to understand. It involves "chance" but the outcome is not uniform.

I also gave the example of a ball shot straight up with no lateral winds, X = point where ball lands. Let D = a disk of radius 1 meter centered at the point of release. Then P[X inside D] >> P[X outside D].

K54

gaussian.jpg

[shunyadragon]

Based on context, I have no idea what you regard as atheism. To me, it simply means lack of belief in the supernatural. Methodological naturalism is entirely compatible with atheism and with much of theism as well. Seems to me you're trying to say "here is the set of beliefs I think those who LACK this set of beliefs must hold." I can't quite parse this.

That's an ok definition.

Simple, seer's arguments are geared to attack atheism, and the possibility that natural world without God, evolution could result in the existence of humanity if God did not deliberately create humanity. I do not believe his argument has traction for those who do nor believe in a 'Source' some call God(s).

[phank]

I made up the numbers. I knew that "bushmen" were short but not that short!

I think you are going WAY over his head. I don't think he understands probability distributions at all. A Poisson distrubution is far from flat, but I spoke of skewness and kurtosos, without even going into different distributions. He STILL thinks that "random" means "all outcomes are equally probable." He has assiduously ignnored EVERY effort to show this isn't the case. We are dealing here with ARMORED ignorance.

[phank]

That's an ok definition.

Simple, seer's arguments are geared to attack atheism, and the possibility that natural world without God, evolution could result in the existence of humanity if God did not deliberately create humanity. I do not believe his argument has traction for those who do nor believe in a 'Source' some call God(s).

Seems illogical to me. Toss a coin X times, get a count of the number of heads and tails, and say "this is what god willed." So evolution just happened to produce humans. From our viewpoint, so what? Evolution produces new and interesting stuff all the time. From the viewpoint of someone either indoctrinated into some ignorant religion or someone really insecure, this undirect process MUST have been directed, else why are we here? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Gods are the excuses of the lazy or the simpleminded. Reality is much more interesting.

[seer]

Because you have made the claim that evolution is entirely a random process, without any non-random components anywhere to be found. This claim is simply false. Random mutations alone are insufficient for evolution to occur. Selection alone is insufficient as well. The process requires BOTH random and nonrandom components. You have not yet given any indication that you understand this. The OP pointed out that when it comes to evolution, neither aspect alone is sufficient, you need a combination.

No phank, I said that outcomes are completely random. And you already agreed with that. Each roll of the dice is random. That even with natural selection that particular outcome is random.

What people have been trying to get you to understand is that it is this combination that makes evolution work at all. You know that sodium alone is toxic, and chlorine alone is toxic, but together they make common table salt. Combinations make qualitative differences. When I keep pointing out that casinos can predict their take to within 1%, and you keep insisting that there is "nothing predictable about the outcomes", we clearly do not agree. I'll go with the casinos - they didn't build Las Vegas by random guessing.

Can you predict the outcome for our beetles? Will the birds that have a taste for beetles be there in the near future? Perhaps another mutation will spread through our better camouflaged green beetles making them more yellow and less camouflaged, etc... There are any number of variables that can change the outcome.

[HMS_Beagle]

No phank, I said that outcomes are completely random. And you already agreed with that. Each roll of the dice is random. That even with natural selection that particular outcome is random.

Can you predict the outcome for our beetles? Will the birds that have a taste for beetles be there in the near future? Perhaps another mutation will spread through our better camouflaged green beetles making them more yellow and less camouflaged, etc... There are any number of variables that can change the outcome.

Just checking to see if seer is still ignoring what has been explained to him ad nauseum and still playing his same childish word games.

Yep, he's still at it.

Pity.

[Jorge]

Are YOU directly the product of design or chance?

Yes or no?

K54

Hey, Santa Dodo, the question you asked wasn't a "yes or no" question.


Oh ... wait ... how silly of me ...

For YOU it's a "yes or no" question because you already have your answer.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Hey, Santa Dodo, the question you asked wasn't a "yes or no" question.


Oh ... wait ... how silly of me ...

For YOU it's a "yes or no" question because you already have your answer.

Jorge

I thought design and chance were mutually exclusive in ID-speak?

At least seer appears to think so.

So try again.

K54