I just can't get my head around it. Tell me crashfrog, when you observe a random mutation, how do you know it's random? If you mean that it is very unpredictable, so is radioactive decay but it doesn't mean that it is random
Random is applied to series of events {a series being necessary to show patterns} and defines a series of events as random when past events do not influence subsequent events.
If you take a coin and flip it ten times in a row what would you expect the next coin flip to be?
"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
because if we have a cause then we can make a machine not having a cause makes no sense(to me).
Ah well, I guess it's tough for an Australopithecus to think too much in the abstract. Random doesn't mean uncaused.
Lightning strikes at random, but it has a cause. Some things are more likely to be struck than others, and some parts of the genome are more prone to mutation than others. But lightning and mutations both strike without pattern.
We're off topic, so I'll add that we know this through observation, not by logic alone, in a pretense at being on topic.
I really, really hope we drop the discussion of randomness.
New members like Lucy should be aware that threads are closed shortly after they reach 300 posts. Too many short off-topic posts quickly use up the thread.
randomness, chance and probability ... and the logic of ID
Now I take a set of genes and apply a random mutation operator..Hmm how do I do this? Maybe just select one, that's not random it's just arbitrary. Pick one out of a hat, that's not random either because I actually decided to do it. Write an algorithm? sure, give me all the processing power in the whole world and a couple of hundred billion years and I'll get pretty close, but no cigar. You just can't incorporate randomness into a structured system. On the other hand if by random you mean unpredictable, that's a different kettle of fish this works but then you've created a creator hat or Me the creator or Supercomputer creator.
You are trying to replicate what we see in nature with an intellectual operation, in effect assuming an IDer that is trying to be intentionally random. The question is what do we mean by random:
We can say something is random when it happens by chance. One throw of a pair of dice has a random result, while 100 throws fits a probability distribution (with a most probable total of 700).
Thus the chance of a specific atom decaying is random - we don't know when it will decay - but the decay of a bunch of atoms is predictable in following an overall probability distribution that results in the well known and observed decay curve.
When scientists look at mutations they see a similar statistical distribution of chance changes in DNA at several different levels, atom, amino acid, whole sections of DNA. When we look at the overall result, still at a micro level, we see a probability distribution of common alleles (ones that have been around for a while) and some "wild card" new ones.
When we look at the macro level result - the phenotype of an individual organism - we see that there are also some chance impacts of environment, chemicals, heat, etc, that can affect how an organism develops. We also see a probability distribution in traits like size, weight, length of legs, etc. - the results of the distribution of alleles in the genes and their interaction with environmental factors, with some "wild card" new ones (say eye color).
It is the probability distribution that shows mutations are random, by the definition used in science.
I just can't get my head around it. Tell me crashfrog, when you observe a random mutation, how do you know it's random? If you mean that it is very unpredictable, so is radioactive decay but it doesn't mean that it is random(without cause).
But radioactive decay IS random, that it follows a probability distribution does not affect the randomness of a specific atom decaying. That fits the definition used in science for random.
This could be a whole topic on it's own, it's difficult to cover simply in one post.
When we consider this in light of the premise of visible ID action, or the point of view of discerning the implementation of design, we do not see a trend in the distribution of alleles, whether new or old, or in the distribution of macro effects of genes and environment on the individual phenotypes.
The fact that there is a random distribution argues against any assumption of design, unless the purpose of the design is to be as random as possible and then let naturally occurring selection factors determine which individual organisms survive and their relative success in reproduction.
This then allows us to postulate that environment is controlled in order to direct the selection process in a designed manner. Here again when we look at the observed changes in environment we see some patterns of oscillations - day/night, summer/winter, solar cycles, milancovic cycles - and some randomly distributed meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions, major floods and the like.
The result again is a random distribution of specific environments in different places around the globe, where there is a random distribution of variation around an average for whatever time scale you choose. We do not see a trend in the distribution of environments that would argue for this being a path for design selection of maximized random production.
In short we do not observe any implication of design implementation at this level of observation.
Thus, logically, we cannot conclude a design process is implemented that does not perfectly mimic nature undirected.
That is one way logic is used to help establish truths.
Don't dare start a new thread now. We're almost there. If we can just get a round about figure on the randonmess of a random mutation then leave it to me.
If we can just get a round about figure on the randonmess of a random mutation then leave it to me.
I do not understand this.Are you implying that randomness has a specific numerical value? Best to take this to a new thread because it is not going to just come to you without deeper insight into the nature of randomness methinks.
Random mutation not only doesn't require a designer, it would take a massive effort on the part of any supposed designer to keep it from happening. Reproductive events require copying of the DNA, and the copying is almost never perfect. Imperfect copying is what causes random mutations.
I think what Lucy is asking is how you know that its random at all? What qualifies or disqualifies randomness? Maybe that's the way it was designed, I think (s)he is saying.
Maybe its all an obscurantist, but it seems that there is a legitimate point to the question, especially when considering that chaos never seems to be, well, chaotic.
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
In this thread? Unless you can connect randomness to the topic, randomness seems like a discussion for another thread.
Don't encourage Lucy.
Well, it only seems fair that if someone is going to bring up randomness that we define what it means, or attempt to figure out how we would now if something was actually random.
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
Maybe its all an obscurantist, but it seems that there is a legitimate point to the question...
In this thread? Unless you can connect randomness to the topic, randomness seems like a discussion for another thread.
Don't encourage Lucy. His previous posts in this thread weren't on topic either, they were a digression about gravity.
Unless I've suddenly forgotten how to write English, the above should communicate the idea that I don't believe randomness is connected to the topic, and that because Lucy has already demonstrated a propensity for going off-topic it probably isn't wise to act as an enabler.
Now, maybe I'm wrong about this, so what any response to my post should address is how randomness is actually on-topic. Just repeating your opinion that we should explore the subject of randomness doesn't say anything about why it's not off-topic.
Random doesn't mean uncaused.
™ Version 4.2
