The problems of the belief in 'Randomness' and use of probability in 'Intelligent Design.'

[shunyadragon]

I posted this in another thread and I believe it deserves it;s own thread.

Out of interest in the issue I did a search of RF on 'Intelligent Design' and I was amazed at the number to threads on the topic including several addressing the problem of Islam and Intelligent Design. I was discouraged by the pattern of perpetual stone walling of those that support the religious hypothesis of Intelligent Design at the gross denial of science as science.

I noted an issue not yet addressed in this thread. The belief in Randomness as a natural attribute of nature that justifies the necessity of Intelligent Design. The belief that the the cause and effect event outcomes in nature are subject to 'randomness' is the reason a few Creationist scientists appealed to calculations of probability to justify Intelligent Design. The assumption of this argument that the outcomes of cause and effect events are to large degree random. I previously devoted a thread or two addressing this problem. It is true in the somewhat distant past science considered randomness an issue in the outcomes of cause and effect events in nature. The issue of randomness and probability was previously touched on by @3rdAngel and @1213, but not explained. Intelligent Design scientists like Compton and Townes consider evolution is factually true, but support Intelligent Design. This is different from the perspective of the Islamic and Fundimentalist Christian perspective that Evolution is false based on the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

I challenge the assumption of the influence of randomness in the cause and effect outcomes in nature. I addressed this problem in detail in this thread Understanding Chaos Theory, Fractal Math, and Nature

Basically all the variability in the outcomes of cause and effect outcomes of chains of the outcomes of events is explained by Chaos Theory. The only thing that is really random is the timing of individual events and that cannot be predicted. For example: The pattern of the radioactive decay of a mineral can be predicted at a given rate, the timing of individual events is random. In genetic mutations each individual mutation outcome as well as the chain of event outcomes is determined by Natural Laws as reflected in the principles of Genetic science. Though the timing of an individual mutation cannot be predicted.

Throughout scientific publication I am discouraged by the use of randomness and random in describing events like Genetic mutations. In one scientific reference the author described Genetic mutations in terms of Chaos Theory but then dropped the ball describing it as 'almost random.' It is true that the timing of individual Genetic mutations are random, but the pattern and nature of different types of Genetic mutation is predictable in the chain of cause and effect events over time.

Estimates of probability by Intelligent Design scientists claiming randomness as a factor does not take into account the determinate nature of chains of cause and effect event outcomes over time. The environment is the major driving force in determining the history the outcomes of chains of genetic mutations and ultimately evolution.

 

[1213]

... The issue of randomness and probability was previously touched on by @3rdAngel and @1213, but not explained....

Throughout scientific publication I am discouraged by the use of randomness and random in describing events like Genetic mutations. In one scientific reference the author described Genetic mutations in terms of Chaos Theory but then dropped the ball describing it as 'almost random.' It is true that the timing of individual Genetic mutations are random, but the pattern and nature of different types of Genetic mutation is predictable in the chain of cause and effect events over time.
...

I am not sure have I understood you correctly, but, I want to say, I don't think there is anything random in the nature, if it is understood correctly. Everything has cause and effect. And it may look random when people don't understand properly what lead to it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not sure have I understood you correctly, but, I want to say, I don't think there is anything random in the nature, if it is understood correctly. Everything has cause and effect. And it may look random when people don't understand properly what lead to it.

To add. all chains of cause and effect outcomes have a natural predictable pattern within a range of possible outcomes based on Natural Laws and natural processes. described by Chaos Theory.

This reference describes this relationship: Chaos: Making a New Science by James Gleick

For more details see the following thread on this forum: Understanding Chaos Theory, Fractal Math, and Nature

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't think there is anything random in the nature

This is the sort of remark I have come to expect from you. You are completely ignorant of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, but you mouth off like you know it all.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is the sort of remark I have come to expect from you. You are completely ignorant of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, but you mouth off like you know it all.

I do not believe anything is truly random in nature including Quantum Mechanics, and defended this view in the following thread with references.

Understanding Chaos Theory, Fractal Math, and Nature

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding concerning the nature of the outcomes of cause-and-effect events and the nature of our physical existence including mutations, evolution, Quantum Mechanics,, and the question of randomness in how the variation of the outcomes of cause-and-effect...

www.religiousforums.com

The only thing that is observed to be random is the timing of the outcome of individual events.

Unfortunately the claim of randomness have been an assertion to justify Intelligent Design.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I posted this in another thread and I believe it deserves it;s own thread.

Out of interest in the issue I did a search of RF on 'Intelligent Design' and I was amazed at the number to threads on the topic including several addressing the problem of Islam and Intelligent Design. I was discouraged by the pattern of perpetual stone walling of those that support the religious hypothesis of Intelligent Design at the gross denial of science as science.

I noted an issue not yet addressed in this thread. The belief in Randomness as a natural attribute of nature that justifies the necessity of Intelligent Design. The belief that the the cause and effect event outcomes in nature are subject to 'randomness' is the reason a few Creationist scientists appealed to calculations of probability to justify Intelligent Design. The assumption of this argument that the outcomes of cause and effect events are to large degree random. I previously devoted a thread or two addressing this problem. It is true in the somewhat distant past science considered randomness an issue in the outcomes of cause and effect events in nature. The issue of randomness and probability was previously touched on by @3rdAngel and @1213, but not explained. Intelligent Design scientists like Compton and Townes consider evolution is factually true, but support Intelligent Design. This is different from the perspective of the Islamic and Fundimentalist Christian perspective that Evolution is false based on the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

I challenge the assumption of the influence of randomness in the cause and effect outcomes in nature. I addressed this problem in detail in this thread Understanding Chaos Theory, Fractal Math, and Nature

Basically all the variability in the outcomes of cause and effect outcomes of chains of the outcomes of events is explained by Chaos Theory. The only thing that is really random is the timing of individual events and that cannot be predicted. For example: The pattern of the radioactive decay of a mineral can be predicted at a given rate, the timing of individual events is random. In genetic mutations each individual mutation outcome as well as the chain of event outcomes is determined by Natural Laws as reflected in the principles of Genetic science. Though the timing of an individual mutation cannot be predicted.

Throughout scientific publication I am discouraged by the use of randomness and random in describing events like Genetic mutations. In one scientific reference the author described Genetic mutations in terms of Chaos Theory but then dropped the ball describing it as 'almost random.' It is true that the timing of individual Genetic mutations are random, but the pattern and nature of different types of Genetic mutation is predictable in the chain of cause and effect events over time.

Estimates of probability by Intelligent Design scientists claiming randomness as a factor does not take into account the determinate nature of chains of cause and effect event outcomes over time. The environment is the major driving force in determining the history the outcomes of chains of genetic mutations and ultimately evolution.

There's no such thing as an intelligent design scientist.

Granted there have been scientists who believe in intelligent design , but have never been able to explain anything satisfactory that would be acceptable by peers and published in the subsequent journals and publications associated with the various legitimate disciplines in science.


The odds argument is quite ridiculous as well, because I can take a handful of rice and throw it and note the odds of each and every grain of rice facing in specific directions and in specific positions and make all sorts of conjectures involving probability and all that.
The only way you can predict odds including randomness is to see an exact repeat where you can calculate the actual figures to determine those odds. Otherwise it's just 1:?

That means I can always throw infinitesimal odds each and every time. I never knew that could be so easy!

Just because it happens doesn't mean it's going to be intelligently designed as if I or one's imaginary god knew exactly where each and every grain of rice would be before I threw it.

Intelligent design would mean you can throw the exact same way each and every time because it's designed. Since that doesn't happen , we know it's random because there is no exact repeat each and every time. If it did , I'd be very impressed.

However , intelligent design clearly just doesn't work that way in the real world making it a moot argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

One of the arguments for 'Intelligent Design' is that because of randomness in nature 'Intelligent Design' is necessary to explain the complexity in life.

More research into the predictability of genetic mutation in evolution:

Evolution is not as random as previously thought, finds new study

A new study has found that evolution is not as unpredictable as previously thought, which could allow scientists to explore which genes could be useful to tackle real-world issues such as antibiotic resistance, disease, and climate change.

phys.org

Evolution is not as random as previously thought, finds new study


by University of Nottinghamdent relationships of predictable genes and their predictors. The nodes are gene families, or groups of gene families with the same PAP, and the edges are coincidence relationships with the arrow pointing at the node whose presence is predicted by the other. Credit: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2023). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2304934120
A new study has found that evolution is not as unpredictable as previously thought, which could allow scientists to explore which genes could be useful to tackle real-world issues such as antibiotic resistance, disease, and climate change.

The study, which is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), challenges the long-standing belief about the unpredictability of evolution and has found that the evolutionary trajectory of a genome may be influenced by its evolutionary history, rather than determined by numerous factors and historical accidents.

The study was led by Professor James McInerney and Dr. Alan Beavan from the School of Life Sciences at the University of Nottingham, and Dr. Maria Rosa Domingo-Sananes from Nottingham Trent University.

"The implications of this research are nothing short of revolutionary," said Professor McInerney, the lead author of the study. "By demonstrating that evolution is not as random as we once thought, we've opened the door to an array of possibilities in synthetic biology, medicine, and environmental science."

The team carried out an analysis of the pangenome—the complete set of genes within a given species, to answer a critical question of whether evolution is predictable or whether the evolutionary paths of genomes are dependent on their history and so not predictable today.

More to follow . . .

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am not sure have I understood you correctly, but, I want to say, I don't think there is anything random in the nature, if it is understood correctly. Everything has cause and effect. And it may look random when people don't understand properly what lead to it.

Au contraire, there is very much that is random in nature. A "copying error" in gene transcription is just that -- an error -- and as such a random event. Now, whether that copying error leads to a failure (as it most often does) or to success (very infrequently) determines whether the error gets retained in future copying events depends entirely on how the error expresses itself in offspring. Usually, that error will be immediately removed. Sometimes, it will yield a result better than the prevalent correct copies -- and that can very quickly take over and become the dominant new gene.