Okay, What does random mean in contemporary science/ Why did the definition change from the common one? It seems with quantum physics that everything is probabilistic or random. Is that true?
The only legitimate reason to doubt science in terms of evolution is if science is saying that evoulution is at its core without order, because it does not. But if science says it is random, then it sure seems to say this. Yes. or No? Is it or not?
Are you saying that the odds for the game of craps are very different from the the ones we lear5ned in school?
I looked at the website. I tried to understand what it was saying. I say the curve nicely worked out and read where they said it was wrong.
I am afraid I am very concerned when it looks lke people are messing with numbers in a way that I so not understand. Not theat I play craps, but next maybe someone might say that 2 + 2 do not make 4 and have the “math” to prove it.
There is an old saying that figures don’t lie, but liars know how to figure. I am not accusing you or any one else of being a liar, but to say I want more information that I received here.
Ok, we are looking at the science from two different perspectives, you from your mathematic statistical view and mine from a naturalistic view. I am sorry, but I do not understand how “a tendency” can so anything. It is a word, an abstraction. It is not a thing or a name of a thing.
If natural selection changes the probability distribution,
How does it change it? what does it do or how doe it change? That is what I want to know. Is that too much to ask?
Alleles that are better adapted to the environmental niche than others have an evolutionary advantage RAS
A great and wise scientific thinker Karl Popper insisted that science be subject to verification. He was subjected to all sort of pressure because he refused to accept survival of the fittest because it like what you state is not verifiable. In a sense he gave into this pressure, because he said that natural selection could be verifiable using ecological selection, but it never has been, so it still has not been verified, so it still is not science by the best definition we have.
Again, who gives these ratings and why? Again my position is clear. Natural selection is based upon how the allele relates to its environment and of course we are not talking about one individual, but many so the probabilistic aspects work out. If the adaption to the environment, enables the allele to better survive and thrive, then it is selected in If not it is selected out.
On the other hand, environments change and species can become less well adapted then optimal and thus may be selected out in favor of another species that is better adapted. As far as I can see this is not accounted for in you view.
It seems to me that if natural selection can be shown to have a positive correlation to environmental adaption or failure to adapt, this should prove the case. I really do not understand why no one seems to want to do this
The roll of one die is random. The probability curve of many is not.
The probability of a variable that has been selected in is 100%.
They are very much not the same thing.