Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Difflugia]

If we include, retain or otherwise account for that discarded information then the outputs are as random as the inputs.

You've just changed the output function. Either of us can define an output function that preserves the randomness of the inputs as you've just done. Your assertion, though, was that any output function with random inputs necessarily has random output. That's false and I've told you why.

Evolution is a process involving random inputs and nonrandom output for exactly the same reason. Many random inputs are aggregated into a statistical measure of reproductive success that is nonrandom. That the measure is something that affects the real world and its history is immaterial.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #305]

If you threw a six sided dice for an hour but 5 never, ever, ever came up, could we describe the outcome of the throwing as random?

Yes. In a random environment such a condition can occur.

Therefore I can conclude that since this would never happen, I must exist within a non-random environment.

One can stretch out the timeline infinitely and say that the five-side will never show no matter how many times the dice is thrown.

In that, we can conclude we exist within a random environment, if I am understanding your reasoning here...

Sure - we have to expect that the five-side WILL show up at some point, because 'odds are' but it is not the throw of the die which decides for us whether we exist within a random mindless environment. It is our inability to correctly predict the outcome of each throw which has us falsely concluding therefore, that we must exist within a random mindless thing.

However, that inability to predict with accuracy doesn't prove randomness [or mindlessness] actually exists as a fundamental aspect of the physical universe.

I hear ya.

What I was getting at is that in a random system, not getting a 5 on a consecutive bunch of rolls can be expected. Granted, it'd have ya questioning on if ya wanna keep placing bets

[brunumb]

The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random. This is elementary logic, yet as is often the case the evolution devotee disregards logic, they have their own brand of pseudo logic where they can make any claim they like and expect others to accept it as fact.

Oh good grief. This, coming from a guy who also didn't know bacteria are a Domain and tries to (childishly) ridicule others for not understanding evolution.

I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.

How can that be if the color of discs I pulled out is random?

Sheesh....creationists...

You misunderstand your own example. The probability of you pulling a red disc is not random, do you need me to elaborate here?

Random event: An event with a probability of occurrence determined by some probability distribution.
The toss of a coin, throw of a dice and lottery draws are all examples of random events.

How does a drawing disc, sight unseen, from a bag containing mixed colours not qualify as a random event? The probability is not the random event by the way. It is the drawing of the disc. The probability of drawing a red disc depends on the total number of discs in the bag and the number of red discs.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #322]

What I was getting at is that in a random system, not getting a 5 on a consecutive bunch of rolls can be expected.

In a non-random system, the same can be said. [The die can be loaded so as not to] Therefore we cannot tell through such device, what the system is..."random" or "non-random"

[Understanding the sides of the argument, rather than choosing to assume one sides position over the other...[Re: Do you understand those on the other side?]]

Like a loaded die, if the system is not random or mindless, but the system was built in order that those within it couldn't easily make accurate predictions, and could easily not see that randomness wasn't a fundamental thing about the system, then this universe sports that.

[brunumb]

Please no allusions to imaginary books about statistics or other hand waving evasion tactics.

Wow. I posted a math website for you. Did you forget?

Where is the randomness please, in reaching into a bag containing only black discs and getting a black disk? This is important for you to understand Jose, particularly if you want use such examples to support claims about evolution.

What th......?

You honestly think mutation is like pulling discs out of a bag that has only black discs? You think mutations are limited to only one possible outcome? I guess you do....more's the pity.

Right now I'm trying to figure out if you simply do not get this, are just desperate to avoid admitting even the smallest error, or are trolling.

Is the color of disc drawn from a bag of black discs random or not? Do you understand the question even? If so why are you struggling to answer it?

The situation under discussion involves a bag containing coloured discs, not just black discs. Why are you changing this?

Perhaps you want to use technical terms rhetorically, throwing "random" and "probable" around as you see fit without regard to their academic meaning in science or mathematics, is that it?

And I must remind you that the bag and discs analogy is your own analogy, you introduced it during a discussion about random mutations! You want to introduce abysmal analogies and then blame me for them?

I never compared random genetic mutations to a bag of discs YOU DID when you wrote:

I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.

You introduced this not me, you made absurd claims about randomness and now you have the audacity to phrase this as if I have done something wrong by pointing out your errors?

Drawing the disc is a random event. You have claimed it isn't. Support that. You also altered the situation so that there are only black discs in the bag. This makes no sense. You appear to be trying to construct a straw man to knock down. All you are demonstrating is a lack of understanding of what has been presented to you.

[brunumb]

The probability of pulling any color of disk has changed, the results cannot be regarded as random anymore because the original probabilities have changed and the definition of random involves probability, not that you bother with the inconvenience of pesky definitions.

Each draw is a separate, random event regardless of the changes in probability that may occur. Please show how "the definition of random involves probability" supports your claim if you disagree.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #265]

In science the only thing you can use to construct an explanation for the universe is the universe, if you can't see the sheer absurdity and futility of that belief then I can't do much for you.

When worded like that it is absurd, because the "universe" encompasses the entire physical reality that we know about. Since we don't know the physical mechanism(s) involved in its origination, or if had an origin, or if it is the only universe that exists, etc., there is no way to rule out the possibility that some natural sequence of events led to it. Not knowing the answer to a scientific question does not rule out a potential natural explanation, and how the universe that we now about came into existence is an unsolved scientific problem.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #313]

It is disingenuous, an abuse of language to argue a process (evolution) that needs randomness to achieve anything is not itself to be described as a random process!

Ignoring the nonrandom process of natural selection is the issue you seem to have trouble with. The inputs to the evolutionary process are many, with some being random (eg. mutations) and some being nonrandom (eg. natural selection). So you have a mix of random and nonrandom inputs making the outcome not purely random. Here's a very simple and common example.

The tails of male peacocks did not reach such large sizes and with many "eyes" purely randomly. Sexual selection by the females (a natural selection process) drove this condition as they (preferentially and therefore nonrandomly) choose to mate with males that have large tails with many eyes. Peacocks with small tails and few eyes on them will produce few if any offspring because the peahens won't mate with them, and their genes for small tails with fewer eyes will fade from the population over time as a result.

This scenario could never happen in a purely random evolutionary process, therefore evolution cannot be described as a random process and it is not disingenuous to say so. It is just the opposite. There are countless other examples where the selection pressure is not sexual selection but something else (eg. climate changes, geographical changes, change in predator/prey balance, change in food sources and availability, etc. etc.). Natural selection is not random.

[JoeyKnothead]

If I did a million tests Jose, and got the number 23 99% of the time and some other number between 1 and 100 the other 1% of the time, would you say that the value 23 was random?

You're doing the math of random after the fact.

What would be a problem here is if your scenario were impossible - then randomness ain't a part of it.

Granted, a million runs is quite high, but the law of random does allow for such incredible outcomes.

[Inquirer]

If we include, retain or otherwise account for that discarded information then the outputs are as random as the inputs.

You've just changed the output function. Either of us can define an output function that preserves the randomness of the inputs as you've just done. Your assertion, though, was that any output function with random inputs necessarily has random output. That's false and I've told you why.

Evolution is a process involving random inputs and nonrandom output for exactly the same reason. Many random inputs are aggregated into a statistical measure of reproductive success that is nonrandom. That the measure is something that affects the real world and its history is immaterial.

We may be entering into semantics. How can the outcome of a process that relies on random events be described as being not random? If the output state could be A or B or C depending on whether the input is X or Y or Z, then the output state is random if the input is random.

This is the root of my objection, the claim "evolution is not a random" process.

If you cannot determine the output state without first knowing the input and the input is random, then the output state too must be random.