You are not a crazy person, nor is Perry. Unfortunately, that does not rescue his understanding of “random.” I’m not “his detractor” either.
Yes, but the mutations are targeted temporally, to precise loci (the hyper-variable region), and to precise cells (the correct immune cells). The proportion of of useful mutations is much higher than that would be expected with an untargeted approach.
What do you mean by “fully random”? This is not a technical phrase I know how to interpret.
In terms of EES reasoning (e.g. Shapiro), radioactivity is not random, nor is quantum processes. There are clear patterns. For example…
Satirical Shapiro: It is just false that exponential decay of radioactive isotopes is random. If it was “totally random”, it would not be possible to use radioactive decay to determine the age. The fact that their is a such a regular pattern demonstrates it is not actually random.
This, of course, is not a Shapiro quote (it is satire), but it is the sort of reasoning he uses to argue that mutations are not random. Similar sorts of arguments can be constructed for quantum processes, because they also certainly follow patterns or quantum computing would not even be in principle possible.
I sense this might be intertwined with the meaning of “fully random.” What do you mean by it @sygarte?
If you both refuse to budge on definitions, the conversation will never end.
“Random - like throwing dice” means no discernible pattern… not that the laws of physics dont apply.
Some say “Truly Random” to mean no pattern AND without natural laws that would allow prediction.
and finally there is the use of the phrade “Truly Random” to mean even God cannot use natural laws to predict the outcome. Please note the intentional avoidance of prediction by means of divine omniscience.
A person getting up in the morning to go to work is sensibly modeled as a random variable. It will not even be hard to find economic papers that model lost work days in exactly this way. So yes, it is a random event.
I think it is problematic to define random as involving no discernable pattern, assuming one intends to try to capture the formal sense of random that is used in science and mathematics and that Joshua has explained. To understand this formal sense in the general case, one has to focus first on the sample space: the set of all possible outcomes. For an example beyond dice and coins, consider adult human height: Human height plot
As shown in the linked image, there is a pattern involving two peaks. But science would model height as a random variable.
A random variable involves two things: a mapping between some domain and the real numbers and a probability associated with each number.
In the case of height, the mapping is between human heights and the numeric measurements of them.
Probabilities are defined mathematically as well. In particular, one must also be careful not to build an interpretation of the nature of probability into an understanding of the technical sense of random.
Probabilities can be interpreted as epistemic or ontological. This is, one can say that we may model something with a random variable because we lack the knowledge to model it deterministically (epistemic probability). Or one can argue that we model something with a random variable because the associated probabilities are part of the world, not just our limited knowledge (ontological). Most think that quantum events are the only candidates for ontological probability. But that issue is still open: it depends on one’s interpretation of QM and there is no consensus on this (eg Bohm says quantum probabilities are epistemic; GRW says they are ontological). But, to emphasize, ontological versus epistemic probability is irrelevant for the technical definition of random.
Finally, the notion of prediction is something separate from the technical sense of random. For we have to separate unpredictable due to ontological probability from unpredictable due to mathematical chaos. Chaotic variables are unpredictable only because precise initial conditions are unknowable in practice; in theory, such chaotic entities are predictable.
I suppose that if God were to do science, then God would still use the same technical definition of random variable. But science is a human endeavor, grounded in our fallibility and limits. So I don’t think it is helpful to bring God into a discussion of the technical definition of random.
Kudos to @BruceS for an excellent description of mathematical randomness.
In common usage, and especially in arguments against evolution, “random” is generally a synonym for incredulity. I’ve never seen anyone - even Dembski - give any consideration to the sample space or distribution of the allegedly random events.
You have been given the alias of “Non-Religious IT Professional”. But this is a site where the implications of science-upon-theology is very much the focus.
So, let’s keep this in mind when we read your final sentences: “I suppose that if God were to do science, then God would still use the same technical definition of random variable. But science is a human endeavor, grounded in our fallibility and limits. So I don’t think it is helpful to bring God into a discussion of the technical nature of random.”
I think this is where we have the problem. Christians who are trying to integrate their religious stance with their professional work, usually don’t have much of a conflict between thinking that one particular human 2000 years ago is part of a triune divinity. But when we bring in the matter of creation, and the purpose of the whole cosmos, qualifying matters from a mortal viewpoint is really not very helpful.
Christians are intentionally trying to look at the Universe in the way that God is looking at the Universe. And from this perspective, it is not only “helpful”, but it is “mandatory” to “bring God into a discussion of the technical nature of random[ness]” !!!
If I were to bet on Behe’s position on whether quantum events are “unknowably random” and/or “random because there are ultimate no natural laws that enable prediction” at the Quantum level (even from God’s perspective on natural laws), I would wager that Behe believes God knows how natural laws government quantum events. This would be my position as well - - all without using the more usual description of omniscience as the way God knows where a meson or some other sub-atomic particle will travel and at what speed.
I don’t have a problem with what you say or the goals of the site or with Joshua’s project (as I understand him) of showing that one can be both a believer in the science of biological evolution as well as being a devout Christian.
But I do see the scientific perspective as separate from the Christian one. Hence I think it is helpful to separate the two in order to understand the math and science definition of random variable. Again, I understand that Christians prefer not to do that. But I did not think that the sole purpose of the site was to present the Christian perspective on scientific issues.
Would it help if I said that my discussion was intended to explain random variable usage only by humans doing science and math, so that God’s role is out of scope for my discussion?
I understand “God knows how natural laws govern quantum events” as meaning God knows (1) the natural laws governing the universe that God created; (2) the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics (if it is part of those laws). I don’t have an issue with that meaning either.
If I understand you correctly, you think that unknowingly random refers to events not governed by natural laws. But I don’t understand how such events, given they could exist, could be unknowable by an omniscient God.
I understand that God stands outside of time. If so, doesn’t omniscience imply that God knows the answer to any logically consistent question about events in spatio-temporal reality?
ETA: I realized that the phrase “given that they could exist” was wrong in this context and so I added the strikethroughs in the above. In particular, miracles would fit into this category of not following natural law, I think, and the existence of miracles follows from most understandings of a theistic God, I believe. But I don’t think this affects my question about them being events in spacetime and hence known by an omniscient God.
Perhaps one can make the argument instead from events due to libertarian human free will rather than those arising from natural law or miracles, but my understanding is that there are theological arguments against free will and omniscience being incompatible.
I’ve had the impression that the usage of ‘random’ in ‘random mutation’ is based on the everyday connotation of patternless. It reminds of me of the patternless-ness one is taught to look for in residual plots in basic regression courses. I have seen that patternless-ness referred to using ‘random’ as an adjective, eg here
I prefer to talk about independence, not randomness. Specifically that mutations are independent of any specific feature or change in the environment. I understand that mutations are not independent of fitness (where fitness is measured by relative reproductive success). For example, any mutation which kills its inheritors is not going to be fit in that sense!
But what about independent from any specific feature of the environment? Does that cover the things that Joshua raised in the other thread?
I think your point in that thread about environmentally-induced stress causing a higher rate of mutation expresses something different from individuals mutations depending on specific environment changes. I think it does mean that the rate is dependent on a change in the environment. And that higher rate may lead to more beneficial mutations for the population. But I think that is different from each individual mutation being independent of a specific feature or change in the environment.
I also share Joshua’s question. When you refer to radioactivity as being fully random, are you speaking of the direction of the activity during decay? Obviously the decay (in terms of timing) occurs on a distribution (which describes the half-life) which would be very similar to the biological examples used here. Just hoping to wrap my brain around what you are saying about something being fully random vs. random.
Very nicely put! @BruceS wrote: “Would it help if I said that my discussion was intended to explain random variable usage only by humans doing science and math, so that God’s role is out of scope for my discussion?”
Joshua responds: “I suspect that these are the sorts of clarifications that @gbrooks9 is pressing for.” < Voila !
It never fails to bring the usual pitter/patter of “random feet” to a close to adequately summarize “randomness” from the human perspective, followed by the caveat that the writer is not trying to suggest or require that something is “beyond natural causation” from the perspective of God. It eliminates confusion and lays the usual ground rules.
I see a lot of dancing around… trying to convince Christians that God is bored with the Universe. But it’s a futile shell game.
Christians dont have to prove that God designed the Cosmos. That issue (proving design) is only important for zealots who want to break open the wall between church and state.
Everybody else is perfectly fine with acceptung design on faith!
There are properties of randomness, and the meaning closest to fully random is “independent”. That means the probability of an event does not depend on other events.
“Identically Distributed” means all the observed events come from the same distribution.
“Distribution” is a mathematical function describing the value and probability of all events.
The exponential distribution (ie: radioactive decay) has a property of being “memoryless”, meaning the expected time to the next event does not change based on the time since the last event.
“Fully” random doesn’t mean anything that can’t be better described by defined terms.
I accept the description of your intentions. But if you will tolerate
a little axe blade sharpening on your good will, my email was
certainly intended for those un-named others who may feel they are
defending science (or at least Skepticism with a capital “S”) as a
replacement for religion.
It is somewhat ironic that as PeacefulScience.Org picks up the slack
in blogosphere participation, much of that increased volume comes from
having even more agnostic fans of Science - - despite the fact this
.Org intentionally promotes the miraculous creation of Adam & Eve (in
the midst of a large population of evolved humans!).
Thanks for this feedback. Do I understand you correctly in saying that specific features of the environment affect the location and direction of mutations? And further, that which location and which direction is correlated with (and so depends on causally on ) some identifiable characteristic of the environment?
On frequency: does this add something over the other variables. Or does it just mean that a stressed population with the same starting genome will produce more of the non-independent type of mutations (ie location, direction) in a given time frame than will a non-stressed one.
Yes, i did not express that link. I had something in mind which I failed to express.
I am assuming that the types of mutations which Joshua listed in the other thread (link below) have the effect of conserving the ability for the inheritor to successfully reproduce, which would make them more fit than a purely random change. But the resulting mutations are still independent of specific characteristics of the environment.
But that understanding of the list is based only a cursory attempt to understand that list.
This is the Joshua’s post with the list I am referring to
