How can we have an idea if you never spell it out?
2 Likes
I tried to follow some of this between you and @RichardG and decided to ask AI for some clarification:
Randomness
Definition: Randomness refers to events or outcomes that occur without a predictable pattern or cause. It is often described as “chance” or “luck.”
Characteristics: True randomness implies that each possible outcome is equally likely and independent of previous outcomes.
Probabilities
Definition: Probability is the branch of mathematics that deals with quantifying the likelihood of different outcomes in uncertain situations.
Characteristics: Probabilities are expressed as numbers between 0 and 1 (or as percentages), where 0 means an event will not occur and 1 means it will certainly occur.
Contrasts
Nature:
Randomness is about the inherent unpredictability of events.
Probability measures and quantifies that unpredictability.
Application:
Randomness is observed in real-world events.
Probabilities are used to model, predict, and understand those events.
Usage:
Randomness can be found in nature and everyday life.
Probabilities are used in fields such as statistics, finance, engineering, and science to make informed decisions based on uncertainty.
In essence, randomness is the phenomenon, while probability is the tool we use to understand and manage it.
Hope this brings some clarrity,
1 Like
That would be my understanding and usage.
Again, thagt would be my understanding and usage
Agreed
Not quite so sure about this one.
Iprobabilites are expressed a one in ax (where x exuals the number of possibilites. Tat could be expressesed a 1/x but that is not the same as 1/2 meaninf half (fraction) so you convert the fraction into percentage.. Certainytl is expressed as 100% which would be 100/100 which is not a mathermatical expression (it would be 1 as you suggested but it is not the right terminology) And to make it more complicaded x can be, and oftenis, more than (or not divisible into) 100 (So you then convert the fraction using staright division eg 1/1000 = 0.0001%) If there is no chance thenn mathematical probabiltiy has no meaning, IOW you woudn’t use it, you would just say “no chance”
Nt sue about the need for “inherent”
Randomenss is still an expression of something that we cannot determine the causee
so in Evolution the exact result of a deviation is random, whic throws up questions about scope, or scale, or size, none of which seem to be defined within the theory. (as far as i can see) Caling it “small” is amazingly innaccurate for science.
Now we come to the awkward bits. That is where probbilitity can be used or abused, or misdirect, or even blatently lie.
Randomeness is a theory or a conclusion based on what we can observe or identify. It is not a certainty or fact, inasmush as there my be factors (controls) that we ha ve not been ale to identify. That means that if we assert a probability we are assuming we know eeverything (and may not be so the probability is false)
I guess the practical applicatons are too complex to define. So basically, yes, but…
With the above restrictions and clarifications.
IOW if we have to resrt to probabitlity we are introducing an unknown factor or factors that are not compensated for and my result in the probablitly being an invented fallacy.
However, usually probabilties are confirmed when the results match the predictions. (But if you cannot observe the results, the predictions cannot be asserted as certain)
So, in the case of evolution, as the cause of the deviation is still unknown and we niether know the reason or even the scope of them, randomness is not certain, so any probability associated with that randomness is also not certain and cannot be obd=served in real time so will remain so The “resuts” we have in terms of fossils or modern examples only prove that something happened, not how it happened, or whether the changes were “random” or not.
I hope that I have shown my understanding and usage, if not the understanding and usage.
Richard
Edit.
Common parlance for no chance is “Zero” which is strctly speaking 0 but a little more emphatic.
The sound in the background is every bookmaker, cardplayer, mathematician, military tactician, actuary, pollster, gamer and sports fan in the world sniggering.
Only in racing? Not boxing, poker, football, bridge, insurance, electoral polling or backgammon?
Apart from the contradiction, that’s not actually why bookies adjust odds.
You are indeed out of your depth.
It only takes one ‘Judgement of Paris’ incident to unmask an imposter. Two or three per post is superfluous.
1 Like
Do you have a source for that? AFAIAA the hypothesis came only after the discovery of Archaeopteryx,
Betting odds are not what are in question.
Are you just trying to be derisive?
How many “exceptions” or variants of use do you wish to cite?
No I am not. If you want to use up virtually all of the available memory we can “discuss” or "explain Probability and statistics. IOW if you waant to start delving into details and specifics, then fine, go ahead.but there is no need here unless you want to “vet” my knowledge!
At this point you have revealed your true intent.
And bias
And colours
And arrogance.
Just get lost will you? I cannot engage with someone like you.
Richard
Edit.
I have no interest in "showing off[quote=“Roy, post:306, topic:53858, full:true”]
The sound in the background is every bookmaker, cardplayer, mathematician, military tactician, actuary, pollster, gamer and sports fan in the world sniggering.
Only in racing? Not boxing, poker, football, bridge, insurance, electoral polling or backgammon?
Apart from the contradiction, that’s not actually why bookies adjust odds.
You are indeed out of your depth.
It only takes one ‘Judgement of Paris’ incident to unmask an imposter. Two or three per post is superfluous.
[/quote]
y knowledge or even “proving” it.
You are not my examiner, nor tutor, not “vetter”.
Just leave me alaone and find someone else to demean or inultl.
There is strong correlation between pro- vs anti-evolution and errors in high-school maths.
At least this one is only out by three orders of magnitude. I’ve seen errors of more than 2500 orders of magnitude elsewhere.
That’s how mutations are modeled in biology. It is also important to stress that biologists describe mutations as being random with respect to fitness. Roulette is a good analogy. Putting you chips on 12 does not increase the chances of getting a 12. The results of the roulette spin are not influenced by where the chips are on the table. In the same way, the mechanisms that produce mutations are not influenced by the specific needs of the organism in a given environment. A Poisson distribution is often used to model mutations if you are interested in more of the specifics.
It’s also interesting to note that a faculty party with slot machines was the inspiration for the first experiments that demonstrated random mutations. Salvador Luria suddenly realized he could model beneficial mutations like you would model the rate at which people win slot machine jackpots.
I ran across this article on Luria and Delbruck. It’s a pretty good read.
2 Likes
I think you are right. The discovery came right after Origin of Species was published, and I don’t remember reading any specifics about bird evolution in Origin.
At the same time, Archaeopteryx was immediately recognized as evidence for Darwin’s theory because it predicted the existence of past species that would have a mixture of characteristics from living species.
4 Likes
Where in the quote you took was there a reference to evolution? (that came later)
and who tend to make the errors (IYO), pro or anti evolutionists?
I am sorry but roulette is not a good analogy as a whole. Roulette has two unaccountable variables. The speed of the wheel and the placement and speed of the ball at insertion. At any one turn (as in from the start of the ball to the final landing) there will be an unknown and un desicernable bias towards some or even one number that is uncontollable even by the operator.Which is why there can be “runs” of the same number, or the reverse. Interestingly enough, if you watch long enough you can see the number(s) that are not turning up and hope that the probabilities will hold and that if you bet on one of them it will come up (hopefully before you run out of chips)
The problem with any use of probability in evolution is, as I said, affected by unknown factors that may or may not bias the result of a deviation. It is not as smple as betting on the outcome because sometimes it is a case of succession, as much as a soecific result. Probabilities cannot easily account for successive deviations because statistically they end up almost impossible yet they happen (apparenty).
This why I am claiming that using either statistics or probability (in evolution) is deceptive at best and eronious at worse.
Richard
The analogy assumes fair play. Torturing an analogy does nothing to the point it is trying to make nor the reality it is trying to describe.
We don’t observe a bias. That’s the point. The randomness of mutations is based on empirical results in experiments (e.g. the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation test). Science is empirical in nature, not philosophical. If the system acts randomly it is considered to be random for the purposes of science.
If you think there is a mechanism that produces non-random mutations, now would be the time to reference it.
2 Likes
You think so?
Let’s see:
Also:
Finally:
You are out of your depth.
1 Like
If you think I am wrong, show me.
(I am not wrong)
The wheel restarts from where it stopped, it is not reset.
No matter how consistant the operator is, the speed will vary.
Because the wheel is already spinning you annot tell at whih point it is where the ball is inserted.
None of those are consistant, or calculable.
The odds on the wheel are based on the assumption that there is an equal chance of each number coming up.And it cannot be so. Even if yiou reset the wheel, and fire the ball at preisely the same time after setting the wheel in motion, not to mention the natural varriance of pressre on botth the wheel, and the ball. It would be almost impossibl to repeat the same throw, and ff you did it would automatically bias and finish on the same number every time instaed of “random”.
There will be natural laws of motion and decrase of speed for both the ball and the wheel that are only constant if the startng speeds are constant. Even the slightest difference will change everything. And that excludes any bouncing of the ball as it stops
Perhaps you have never played roulette? I have.
Richard
1/1000 is 0.1%, not 0.0001%.
1 Like
And yet casinos use statistics to predict their long term profits from roulette games and they seem to be doing pretty good money wise.
Do you think we could use statistics to determine if the results deviate from equal chance?
3 Likes
And?
What is the relevance here?
You are not talking about the same calculation or usage.
ANother wrong question.
All you are proving is that you do not follow my xplanations or understand what the valid uses of statistics or probabilities.
Each use has its own parameters that are included.
The casino bases its figures on what has come before rather than trying to calculate the odds on winning in roulette. (or anyother of their games)
As in all casino games the odds favour the house. They give you the odds on a roulette wheel as I said. (assuming a completely unbias roll) They “know” different. Player beware!
(I do nt play to win. I play for entertainment, You win some you lose some. I have won, lost and broen even, for several hoiurs worth of entertainment. My stake is usallly £20. Not bad for that amount of time. As long as I budget to lose I am not in any danger or even stiictly “gambling”)
The point here is to understand the limitations of the statistics and probabilities (odds) If it was “fair” then more people would win and casinos would go out of business.
Richard
You there gave the reason that the odds for the existence of feathers is 100% certain. The outcome for past events is in the bag.
1 Like
I am finding it difficult following this paper - perhaps you can elaborate. Note that if a single cell culture dies then how would it be revived? Are some not infected - I must be missing something:
“Among the first problems the pair tackled was the emergence of resistance in bacteria. When a culture is grown from a single cell and then exposed to phage, the infected cells die. But if left for a few hours or days, virus-resistant cells start growing and the culture revives itself.”
1 Like
Random does conform to statistics – by definition. Or more properly, random conforms to probability.
All we have to know is that changes in proteins come from mutations, so all we need to know is the probability of a mutation in the right place; we don’t even have to know what place that is – and the chance of that is something like one in 10^{85}. The same is true for each mutation that has to come next, so the probability to get the first two necessary mutations is 10^{85} + 10^{85} or $10^{170}. I assumed ten to twelve mutations needed to get from a proto-feather to a wing, and that comes out to on the order of one in 10^{900} – a number my first astronomy prof would call “ridiculous” because it’s greater than the number of
particles in the universe times the number of seconds that the universe has existed.
There is no flaw – any given set of five cards has a 1 in 2.6 million chance of happening.
Then the odds of that same set being drawn again is much larger, and larger still if they have to be in the right order – something like one in 311 million.
Yes – and they rely on the very same calculations as are being done here.
Huh? That’s exactly what you’ve been arguing, that there is no reason a mammal couldn’t evolve feathers!
2 Likes
Odds are odds; it’s just math.
From what source does this “bias” come? If you’re thinking Newtonian determinism applies, you have to get really down into the weeds because even the most perfect roulette wheel has vibrations because no bearings are perfect (exception: some physics students [at Cal Tech, IIRC] made a roulette wheel that was suspended by magnetic fields – no bearings).
Any such “unknown factor” would still follow the laws of probability, unless there is purpose behind it somehow.
Can you propose an experiment that could determine if there are such factors?
Really good roulette wheels come very, very close. Over time they will accrue wear, which can indeed start to bias the results in a tiny fashion.
What makes it work is that when the tiny biases that wheels develop are all different, so they average out across the casino.
The casinos are using the math you say can’t work – and it works.
Nope, they use probability. But they do watch to see if any wheel develops bias – I suspect they run through wheels more rapidly than anyone might think. One reason is that the gaming commissions rely on the math, so the casinos have to make sure their wheels (and everything else) behave accordingly.
The odds in roulette are based purely on the mathematics – what makes the house win regularly is those two spots 0 and 00; being neither red nor black they make it so the mathematical odds calculated just using red and black are off enough that the house will win. Of course they also rely on the psychology of people who are making the bets; people tend to overextend and lose more money than if they behaved rationally.
You’re confusing two things: the casinos don’t change the odds, they make rules that will cause people to lose in the long run – because they understand the psychology of betting.
3 Likes