RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 158
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2007,09:23   

Dave Scot still doesn't know what the word random means.

I think it’s misleading to say mutations are random with relation to phenotype. Random is synonymous with unpredictable.

Full Stop. Dave Scot is confusing the word "random" as used when in colloquial settings with the technical word "random" as in stochastic, probabilistic, etc.  Of course when scientists use the word "random" they mean something radically different from what Dave Scot's intuitive notions are, and this has been explained to him previously:

But evidently Dave Scot not only considers such corrections pedantic, he also continues to make the same false statements.

Saying random mutations are unpredictable is like saying state lottery results are unpredictable.

In one sense this is correct, they are both unpredictable - we do not know ahead of time who will win the lottery or which mutations will occur, and knowing who is the poorest, or which mutations would be the best gives us no foreknowledge of which mutations will occur or who will win the lottery.  In this way the lottery is random with respect to need, and mutations are random with respect to fitness.  This is not a difficult concept.

We can confidently predict that any given random mutation won’t be beneficial.

But of course, this has nothing to do with what scientists say when they argue that mutations are random with respect to fitness, and DaveScot should know that.

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]