|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How random is a lottery that chooses numbers from a cage of balls? 30% random? 60% random? That's not how randomness is measured, as I explained. (I wish you would learn to read.) Here's one analysis that demonstrates a number of techniques used to assess the randomness of a few ball-based lotteries.
THAT is most definitely a deterministic system. Well, obviously. It's just another example of your general level of carelessness and cluelessness that pervades your posts.
They control how many winning ones there are and how many losing ones. Ball-based lotteries do this too, as do the games in a Vegas casino. Careful construction of the games ensures a predictable distribution of wins and losses even though the discreet outcomes in any particular game are random (or, in the case of slot machines, pseudorandom.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There was actually a clue in the article that you linked: But that’s not possible, since the lottery corporation needs to control the number of winning tickets. The game can’t be truly random. Instead, it has to generate the illusion of randomness while actually being carefully determined. Quite so. Whereas you wrote: "If you ever heard people discussing the lottery in terms of its deterministic nature, I think you are dealing with unusual people or clairvoyants." So, is the journalist who wrote the article an "unusual person or clairvoyant", or does crashfrog's example prove that you were wrong?
Maybe you should have read the article you were using to attempt to prove your point FIRST, before you posted something that disproves your point so obviously you frikkin moron. You can read right? That was amusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Or I could use your argument and claim that just because no one has found a deterministic process in the lottery machine does not mean that it doesn't exist. Yes absolutely! Now you are catching on! If there was a system by which the lottery numbers were determined in advance, then it would not be random (maybe you could explain this to crashfrog-in simple words-so that he can understand it. Drawing colorful pictures might be helpful for him). There is an implied concept (called "as far as we know") that the lottery is random. They could be lying!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You just used the word random, without saying what it was random relative to? How can that be? Which of my uses of the word "random" is confusing your bewildered little brain?
I thought random required a relative object? A comparison. Did you leave something out of your use of the word? Is English your first language?
But yes, I agree, the word random doesn't always mean that all outcomes are equiprobable, and I guess that is why I wouldn't say that. You just did, in the post to which I was replying.
There indeed are times when one result is more probable than another. Thus the standard to measure whether or not something is random, is to determine if the selection process is controlled or not. Hmm, determinism seems to be such a useful word when considering randomness. This seems more like free association than an attempt at rational thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If there was a system by which the lottery numbers were determined in advance, then it would not be random Well, no. Probability equations have no term for time. If I use the lottery ball-blowers to generate next wednesday's Quick Pick drawing in advance - maybe I'm going on vacation or something - it's not any less random; I've just set up a situation where I have to be very careful about keeping that information secret to preserve the fairness of the lottery. Anybody who found out what I'd drawn in advance would have an unfair advantage over everyone else; but as long as nobody knew, the lottery wouldn't be any less random. No individual ticket would be any less likely to win than any other. There's no term for time in P(a). Contrarywise, if I weighted some of the numbered balls so that they were heavier (and thus less likely to pop up) than the others, the lottery numbers would still be random but the game would be a lot less fair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes absolutely! Now you are catching on! If there was a system by which the lottery numbers were determined in advance, then it would not be random (maybe you could explain this to crashfrog-in simple words-so that he can understand it. Drawing colorful pictures might be helpful for him). There is an implied concept (called "as far as we know") that the lottery is random. They could be lying! This is indeed implied, and goes without saying. The burden of proof lies on the person who wishes to contradict everything we know. If, for example, you hypothesize that mutations are actually determined by the whims of invisible magic pixies, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
In advance of the numbers being selected you, not in advance of them being revealed, idiot! Determining them beforehand!
Wow, you and Dr. A must have a great time partying together! Did you go back and re-read the silly little article you referenced to see how wrong you were? I can make you a pop-up book if you like, that the two of you can share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Yes absolutely! Now you are catching on! If there was a system by which the lottery numbers were determined in advance, then it would not be random (maybe you could explain this to crashfrog-in simple words-so that he can understand it. Drawing colorful pictures might be helpful for him). There is an implied concept (called "as far as we know") that the lottery is random. They could be lying!
So how did you determine that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness? Are you able to predict where each and every mutation will occur in every cell?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Determining them beforehand! How would you do that except by blowing numbered balls, if we're talking about the numbered-ball lottery? It's frequently completely impossible to determine what you're on about, do you know that? I wish you'd make an effort to be calm, rational, and above all correct your incredible misunderstanding of almost every conceivable topic. Why do you allow yourself to be the person who knows the least about these subjects? Do you really think that's the most advantageous footing from which to argue your position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
We used to have an employee from Taiwan who was expert at getting his way by never appearing to understand anything anyone else was saying.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Why do you allow yourself to be the person who knows the least about these subjects? Do you really think that's the most advantageous footing from which to argue your position? But it is indeed the most advantageous footing from which to argue his position. Knowledge is required to argue for the truth; but ignorance will best sustain falsehood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Shapiro wrote;
Has NATURAL GENETIC ENGINEERING changed the modern Darwinian theory of evolution as we know it today? Of course. Going from random accidents to regulated biochemical systems as the source of genetic variation is a fundamental change. It allows us to understand how outside events can trigger change (see table in my 2006 "Genome Informatics" article), makes it clear how combinatorial change can occur using established adaptive components (e.g. protein domains, regulatory modules), and provides a way to investigate what kind of heuristic guidance may be operating in genome change. Here Dr. Shapiro seems to be in conflict with your quote below. He says what were referred to as "random accidents" are regulated biochemical systems that are a source of genetic variation . Implying the modernist theory relied on "random accidents. He also uses the term "heuristic guidance" may be operating in genome change. That indicates to me either a discovering or learning something, or proceeding to a solution by trial and error or by loosley defined rules. Dr Adequate wrote;
...is that the random nature of mutations is an obstacle overcome by natural selection, not a prerequisite of evolution. The theory of evolution explains how evolution works despite randomness, not because of it. How can random mutation be an obstacle, if it is necessary for a change in the gene or genome?Without random mutation or as Dr. Shapiro states biochemical systems would we have evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
He says what were referred to as "random accidents" are regulated biochemical systems that are a source of genetic variation . No. No no no no no.The biochemical systems ARE THE SOURCE OF THE RANDOM MUTATIONS. For the love of christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2963 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Percy writes;
Thought I'd add one more thing. Don't know if this helps, but the processes that Shapiro calls non-random are also non-deterministic. Were you perhaps thinking that anything non-random must be deterministic? That non-random and deterministic are synonyms? Shapiro wrote; Evolution is a process that produces adaptive inventions with a spontaneous probability of occurrence that is vanishingly small. How can that be anything but non-random? He then states that ..."non-random and STRICTLY deterministic are not synonymous." EMPHASIS MINE.My interpretation is that Shapiro is saying Natural Genetic Engineering is not totally deterministic, but is determnistic to a degree. That the cells have sentience that allows some room for decisions. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
He says what were referred to as "random accidents" are regulated biochemical systems that are a source of genetic variation . And that genetic variation is random with respect to fitness. That genetic variation includes neutral, beneficial, and detrimental mutations.
Without random mutation or as Dr. Shapiro states biochemical systems would we have evolution? Without random mutations we would lack biodiversity, that is for sure. If each species only had a set number of changes it could make through deterministic systems then there are only so many changes they can make. It would be like a phone that can only dial 5 preset phone numbers. Even worse, if those 5 preset phone numbers do not fix the situation the species finds itself in the species goes extinct. To get a better handle on what scientists mean by "random with respect to fitness" it might help to learn about the two experiments that set the foundation for this principle: 1. Luria-Delbruck Fluctuation experiment 2. Lederbergs' Plate Replica experiment In both cases, beneficial mutations occurred PRIOR to the environmental challenge. IOW, the mutations conferring antibiotic or bacteriophage resistance were not informed by the presence of antibiotics or phage. Instead, these challenges selected for the pre-existing mutants. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024