This is odd. Because when I do a google search for “stochastic”, all of the links on the first page seem to be saying that stochastic = random. And that’s how I look at it as a mathematician.
1 Like
Is that what you say over at TSZ when I point out that evolutionary processes are stochastic and that they are therefore, by definition, random?
I don’t think I have commented on that at TSZ.
Are you ready to to have a conversation here @Perry_Marshall? Are you ready to have a phone call with me as I requested?
1 Like
Is that because you have not seen me make that claim at TSZ? Or did you see me make that same claim and just remain silent?
“I don’t recall” is an acceptable answer, even if it may not be true. 
I pay little attention to the content of your TSZ posts, because they appear to be mostly trolling.
2 Likes
Careful in pointing that out here though. You’ll be accused of violating the spirit of peaceful discussion, even when it’s true.
It’s been my experience most uses of “random” assume a uniform probability distribution i.e every card in a random draw from a standard deck has equal 1/52 chance. Stochastic on the other hand usually involves non-uniform probability distributions so individual trials are unpredictable though statistically the results of many trials and may be accurately predicted. Just my $0.02
1 Like
Mathematicians don’t see it that way. But you might be right about how non-technical people see it.
Whether it is true or not that I am trolling at TSZ is irrelevant.
Right Neil?
What Neil means to say is that my comments at TSZ fail to meet his personal subjective standards of what he is willing to accept as acceptable.
Right Neil?
ETA: Why ought I not troll anywhere I please?
I suggest you give up on mind reading. You aren’t any good at doing it.
Joshua,
In summer 2017 we ended up in the same Uber together catching a ride back to the airport from the ASA conference. You made several comments that I took very seriously. Condensed summary of your comments to me:
“Perry I listened to your talk [[slides at https://www.asa3.org/slides/ASA2017Marshall.pdf]] and I didn’t like it. You’re not a scientist and you don’t have a right to tell scientists what we are doing wrong. You don’t have the street cred. You’re just an engineer, so scientists are not going to take you seriously.
“But Perry you have something much more powerful than that. Your story is that you grew up Young Earth Creationist, and when presented with evidence about the Big Bang etc., you changed your mind. Very few people do that.
“Then when presented with evidence for evolution, you changed your mind again.
“Then when presented with the possibility that someone could solve Origin Of Life and you should resist God Of Gaps arguments, you changed your mind again.
“Very, very few people do that. That is refreshing. Perry yours is a very powerful story, because it shows repentance which is something that almost NOBODY is willing to do in public. We need that badly right now.
“But you didn’t tell your story at all. You need to tell your story every time you talk, whether the 2 minute version, the 20 minute version or the 2 hour version, because your story is way more powerful than your scientific views.
“Everyone wonders what your agenda is. If you tell your story, it’s all out on the table and then they might listen to you.
“Oh, and by the way Perry, your site “cosmicfingerprints.com” is not the greatest URL either. Sounds too much like ID.
“And also Perry you need to distance yourself from the Third Way people because they are just trying to take credit for everything that evolutionary biologists have already known for a long time. People like Denis Noble and James Shapiro are just sour grapes that it took a long time for their ideas to get accepted but new ideas always take a long time to get accepted in science. EES is pseudo history and there’s nothing new in what they are saying.”
I might be off on a detail or two. But that’s the gist.
At the time I was a month away from officially announcing the Evolution 2.0 Prize at Arizona State University, where we raised the purse amount to $5 million. And I took all of your excellent advice about my story.
I laid my story on the table just as you suggested. Video and transcript are here:
I mentioned this to some of my business friends. They thought it was hilarious that a science professor was telling Perry Marshall (of all people!) to rely on story instead of cold facts. I too couldn’t help but smile at the irony. Because you were exactly right.
In 2018 I also changed the domain to www.evo2.org. Much better.
So Joshua I do take you seriously. In some circles you are well known and you are shaping the conversation.
So when I saw you in Boston in July 2018, you said “People are discussing your ideas on my blog, come join us,” I came and took a look.
What I find is that you are telling people that Shapiro is abusing terminology for rhetorical effect and you slam him and Noble for saying that mutations are non-random.
You say things like:
“Remember, random does not imply “without pattern.” Just because there is pattern to random mutations does not mean they are magically not random. It just means they are “random with said pattern.”
“This is not a matter of opinion, but one of definitions. Nothing in the definition of “random” precludes that mutations follow patterns. In fact, the statistically definition of “random” itself assumes that mutations follow some patterns.
“I think you have a false conflict in your mind between RANDOM and ORDER. That needs to be stamped out if you want to make sense of this.”
Joshua, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. This makes no sense. Just because orderly events contain randomness does not make them into random variables. Your terminology is a disservice to the field, and the conversation.
T_AQUATICUS says things like:
“Shapiro tries to pretend that transposon activity isn’t random because it is complicated, but that just doesn’t address what biologists mean by random. At that point you might as well claim that the lottery isn’t random because the machine that picks the ping pong balls is complicated.”
As far as I can tell, my definition of random (which is the same as Shapiro’s and Noble’s) is entirely different than yours.
I defined what I mean by “random.” You need to do the same.
I asked you to do this in August. Your response was to ask me to call you on the phone.
Joshua, why the need for a phone call? Why won’t you define your terms?
Is there any reason why this is an unreasonable request?
Joshua, what is your definition of random?
Are you ready to have the conversation here on this forum?
Tone is hard to gauge in writing but it seems like you are upset. I’m not sure what you are hoping to accomllish here either, because I’ve defined random several times.
The fact you refuse a phone call to clarify is concerning to me.
1 Like
For simplicity can you state your definition of random here?
Still waiting for you to answer some basic questions. Try this one first:
1 Like
Your use of the term “evolutionary mutations” suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between mutations and evolution. I’ve never heard anyone use the adjective “evolutionary” in that way before. If there are evolutionary mutations, what is your definition of “non-evolutionary mutations,” then?
4 Likes
Denis Alexander-Somewhat confusingly, the main use of the word “random” in evolutionary biology is quite different from its use within mathematics and physics as just described. In evolution, it simply refers to the fact that genetic variation occurs in an organism without the well-being or otherwise of the organism in view. The primary meaning of “random mutations” is that their occurrence is not influenced in any way by the needs of the individual organism in which they occur. That still leaves open the question as to whether mutations occur “randomly” in the genomes of organisms in the more technical mathematical sense. In other words, if we take the 3.2 billion nucleotides (genetic letters) in the sequence of the DNA in the human genome, is any single letter out of the 3.2 billion equally likely to undergo a mutation? The short answer, already briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, is “no”, and the reasons for that answer will be discussed further below where we discuss the overall roles of randomness and chance in the evolutionary process.
Alexander, Denis. Is There Purpose in Biology? The cost of existence and the God of love (p. 144). Monarch Books. Kindle Edition.
Anyone else,
Your thoughts? Agree, disagree?
1 Like
I dispute this almost entirely. We use the term precisely as is used in math and physics. The wiki page on random variables works just fine as a definition of random for all of us.
3 Likes