>>Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:16:25 -0600
>>To: hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com (Bill Hamilton)
>>From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Fw: The Mere Creation Discussion
>>
>>>Brian D. Harper wrote:
>>>>>BH>Darwinism involves random mutations + natural selection. Natural
>>>>>>selection is about as opposite from pure chance as one could get.
>>>>>
>>>>Stephen Jones wrote
>>>
>>>>>Agreed. But it is the *combination* of "random mutations" with
>>>>>"natural selection" that makes the *whole* process essentially
>>>>>random:
>>
SC:==
>Wrong!
>
>The randomness of mutations does not make the outcome of the process, which
>includes natural selection, random. Rather, natural selection makes the
>outcome of the process, which includes random mutation, nonrandom.
>
>A lottery machine which mixes balls with different numbers, and randomly
>pops a few out of an orifice represents a process and outcome that are both
>essentially random. However, iIf someone stands over it and only selects
>balls that have certain numbers, he would be arrested because he is making
>the outcome unfair and NOT random, even though the numbers that the machine
>generated were random.
>
>Similarly, according to the concept of evolution, mutations may be random,
>but if only certain ones are selected, then evolution CANNOT be considered
>to be random. A simple definition of random is a situation in which every
>event has an equal probability. Since, by definition, natural selection
>only permits certain mutations to survive (i.e., to have a higher
>probability of survival than other mutations), the process is the antithesis
>of random.
Let me follow here with two goals in mind (1) an illustaration of the difference
between random and stochastic and (2) to counter Steve Jone's claim in
another thread that real selection is accomplished only by an intelligent
agent. This second I'll approach by modifying slightly Steve's (Clark) Lottery
example since it will be objected to on account of the intelligent agent
selecting the outcomes.
Let's suppose instead that all the balls do not weigh exactly the same.
Further suppose that the mechanical contraption that selects a ball
is slightly pre-disposed to select lighter balls. Here we have a purely
mechanical selection effect, lighter balls are more likely to show up
than heavier balls. Someone privy to this inside information and is
able to gain access to the balls to weigh them will have a greater
chance of winning the lottery than someone else. One could also
record the outcome of the lottery over a long duration and get an
estimate of the probability distribution for the balls. In any event
the sequence of numbers produced by this process would not be
random in the algorithmic sense but the process is still stochastic.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University