Re: Mastropaolo's probabilities are science.

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:24:50 -0500

At 07:36 PM 10/12/98 -0600, you wrote:
>> However, according to evolution theory,
>>natural selection would then make this a nonrandom event. For example,
>>lets take the lottery. On tv, I often see a large tumbler randomly
>>spilling out balls with numbers. The balls come out randomly. However, if
>>someone stood there and only accepted the balls with numbers she wanted to
>>see, the resulting numbers do not reflect the randomness of the process.
>>Selection, by definition is not random. It is simply wrong to say that
>>evolution theory reflects a random model.

>One question about this analogy. Who chooses the correct balls? Doesn't
>this process require a some intelligent agent to make the proper
>selection?
>
>
>J.J. McKinzie

Not necessarily. Biological selection is a fact. Besides, the question is
not really relevant to my criticism of Joseph's misuse of probability in
making his argument.
_________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter." Proverbs
________________________________________________________