The examples you provide are typical where the laws of chance are used to
describe systems with either many particles and/or many degrees of freedom.
The archetype in the theory of chance is a die that is not loaded and "has"
no memory. Nevertheless, the die has to designed beforehand it is subjected
to throws with outcomes which are still random events. Who designed the die
which gives the outcomes in evolutionary theory? One cannot talk of random
processes without dies. It is vacuous to do so. Witness then great
contribution of Gibbs, which is applicable even to quantum systems, where
equilibrium states are characterized by his statistical ensemble.
>> There is some irony to be pointed out. Some scientists spend their livelihood
>> trying to diminish the randomness that confounds their observations. They
>> to show that their data are worth something, that their conclusions have some
>> authority. Other scientists, or even the same ones will go to extreme
>> prove that science over eons can only proceed by means of purposeless and
>> mechanism. It's quite odd, I think.
>Again, it is the creative tension between physical law and random fluctuations
>that make the complexity paradigm so attractive; it explains how observed
>in the data can result from the inherently intractable interactions affecting
One can get nothing from random processes unless there is a dynamics which
underlies it. The mere use of words like random mutations and natural
selection is nothing else but words. Where is the dynamical model? I have
never even heard anyone bringing in a purely mathematical model which would
simulate the claims of evolutionary theorists.
>> Then there are those who claim that philosophical and religious
>> irrevelent to actual scientific theory. They forget that the very words they
>> speak or statements they write are based on basic assumptions of information
>> transfer and understanding.
>While I would agree that we all are products of our times, and even with
>Dooyeweerd's assertion that all theoretical thought is inherently religious
>the human condition, I again feel the need for caution. To some degree or
>point religious statements are irrelevant to actual scientific theory. For
>can we imagine any scientific theory or procedure that would produce or even
>corroborate such notions as redemption, the existence of Nirvana, or Israel's
The difficulty is to know the nature of a question. For instance, is the
question of origins a scientific question? If not, then the answer can never
come from science.
>> I would LOVE to read about significance tests with respect to "evolutionary"
>> randomness. Imagine. Trying to extract something random out of the confusing
>> perfections conjured in a perfect mind! This is the stuff of comedy or
>> Christopher Morbey
> While I do not know what "evolutionary randomness" is, I suspect you mean
>mutations. Complexity notions of random fluctuations (mutations) exploring (at
>least but probably actual) infinite sequence or state space, only to be
>via self organization and reproduction (autocatalysis), in fact not only afford
>explanation for evolutionary concepts, but provide - at least the
beginnings of -
>a foundational mathematical formulation for its dynamics.
>Besides, randomness is scriptural.
I like to see the mathematical model which will give rise to the dynamics
purported in evolutionary thought. I am afraid that is a monumental task. We
cannot even deduce from theory the numerical values of the masses of
particles and the numerical values of the coupling constants in physics.
These problems are much simpler than those posed by evolutionary theory. Any
physicist that can produce a theory which explains such numerical values
would get an immediate Nobel prize.