102 thoughts on “A question for ID supporters”

  5. A Nevada law was passed at the behest of casino in the 1970s because certain advantage players figured out how to bias outcomes of fair dice.

    These players realized angular momentum helped stabilize the dice and furthermore if they threw the dice low such that they slid, they essentially were non-random outcomes. Some were skilled enough to cap one die over the other so as to suppress the rolling of the bottom die.

    Casino took various counter measures in addition to the law such as arresting wires and back wall pyramids.

    Some claim they can de-randomize the dice even in some modern casinos, but if they do, it ain’t easy, and when the casino has suspicions, they start taking counter measures like throwing the players out of the casino. I witnessed such a “backoff” at Fitzgeralds casino in Tunica.

    Any way, here is a blatant example dice sliding which is now illegal:

    Also if the corners are rounded, they can somewhat be rolled. Harder to do today, but pretty easy with toy dice at home.

  6. I interpret that as a “no”.

    I interpret as a “yes”, good enough to make a design inference using the binomial distribution. 🙂

  8. I think a more direct questing would be in response to Mung’s assertion at UD that:

    intelligently designed experiments demonstrate that evolution is undirected.

    I think this is fundamentally the same issue.

    Can an experiment or an analysis of data determine if dice are loaded (or if mutations are non-stochastic).

    My own thought is that it doesn’t matter whether mutations are stochastic or directed. Mutations explore the entire universe of physically possible changes.

    Whether some are detrimental, neutral or beneficial is determined by chemistry and the environment, not by the cause of mutation.

    ETA: I have a link to the Mung quote, but UD is being flaky for me this afternoon. I’m getting error 522.

    Here’s the quote:

    “Intelligently designed scientific experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that evolution is unguided.”

    Zack Kopplin: There is No Scientific Evidence Against Evolution

    So if Mung happens by here again, I’d ask, it it possible for an intelligently guided experiment to determine if dice are fair, or a process is unbiased?

    Do you suppose casinos employ some method of determining if a client is just lucky or is employing some method for improving over chance?

  10. I think Mung has implied an interesting question. Can you tell if mutation is unguided?

    Gpuccio seems to think mutation is mysteriously guided.

    I suspect it doesn’t matter.

  11. stcordova:
    Fair enough for the casinos. :-)

    God is controlling everything, so is controlling how the die shows.

    But God really likes casinos, so he makes sure that the die looks fair enough for the casinos to be able to work.

  12. petrushka: Can an experiment or an analysis of data determine if dice are loaded (or if mutations are non-stochastic).

    Well, yes. This is the thing, of course. There have been some very clear-cut statements made by a couple of people recently where if you simply replace one word with “dice” it illustrates nicely the absurdity of that particular argument. I had a few I was going to demonstrate with, but feel free to pile on now 🙂

  13. I think cryptography illustrates it is possible to generate a pseudo-random stream — wholly deterministic — which is all but impossible to distinguish from random. Or alternatively, impossible to derive the generating code.

    Now I’m wondering if casinos could rig electronic games to guarantee an outcome, but without the rigging being detectable.

  14. FWIW:

    There are known nucleotide biases that are different for various organisms. DNA can be A, C, T, G. Some creatures have lots of CG in coding regions, some have excess AT in non coding. Or something like that.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/nature10995.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120503

    Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy
    …..

    and

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1001115

    Mutation is the engine that drives evolution and adaptation forward in that it generates the variation on which natural selection acts. Mutation is a random process that nevertheless occurs according to certain biases.

  15. A die can be “loaded” without being controlled. Even a loaded die, when thrown without bias, will produce a stochastic distribution. It will be skewed, but still stochastic.

  16. stcordova: There are known nucleotide biases that are different for various organisms. DNA can be A, C, T, G. Some creatures have lots of CG in coding regions, some have excess AT in non coding. Or something like that.

    Yes, indeed. Now, is your claim that these “biases” are in fact the intelligent designer intervening? Is that how your particular designer works?

    Otherwise I’m afraid I missed your point. Yes, there are mutational hotspots and other, interesting things. But, it’s as petrushka said.

    Unless, of course, that’s how your designer does it’s thing? In those biases?

  17. OMagain,

    But then your side still has to explain your version of why there are biases and hotspots.

    Saying it was an accident that worked is not a very good answer for this. When did they accident work, before or after the bias?

  20. phoodoo:
    Richardthughes,

    It was designed that way.Now, what’s the random accident explanation?

    It randomly evolved that way accidenly, I suppose. Easy to match your level of detail. 😉

  22. stcordova: they essentially were non-random outcomes

    They essentially were outcomes with a probability distribution different to that of fair dice.

    If they’d been “non-random outcomes” someone would have noticed pretty quick!

  23. OMagain

    [phoodoo said] It was designed that way.

    Cancer was designed? Shocking.

    Of course cancer is designed in Creationism/IDism. In a universe created by the will of an omnipotent omniscient deity, there are NO accidents, NO unexpected flaws, NO detail such as a mutation into a cancerous gene too trivial to escape god’s oversight.

    That’s what makes christians such despicable immoral people: they’re willing to worship a creator who creates cancer, and not only creates it as a potential “degeneration” of cell division, but also specifically gives cancer to their loved ones — to their parents, spouses, even to their innocent tiny children — as part of its “divine plan”. The christian bastards will cry at the funeral of the cancer victim and then in the next breath praise the being who designed that awful death.

    Fuck that shit.

    If the IDists were right about the existence and capabilities of their supposed Designer, then they would have to admit that it is responsible for designing cancer, too, along with all the wonderful “complex” cellular “machinery” they so admire.

    Funny, none of them seem to have the stomach to admit that. They all find endless ways to waffle and avoid the issue. Cowards and immoral idiots, every single one of them.

  24. Phoodoo: “But then your side still has to explain your version of why there are biases and hotspots.”

    Basic chemistry.

  26. Elizabeth,

    I think you need to first decide if evolution is directed or undirected before you start talking about randomness.

    The “magic” word emergence doesn’t erase the problem.

  27. Acartia,

    Basic chemistry makes organisms have biased genomes which favor certain combinations of proteins which maintain the organisms. Holyshit, you guys will say anything.

  28. phoodoo,

    Not all outcomes in chemistry are equiprobable, Phoodoo. Don’t confuse your ignorance for our shortcomings.

  31. One difference between Science and ID is that scientists value ignorance about the cause of a phenomena as an opportunity.

    ID seems to value ignorance of cause as a bulwark.

    Just an observation.

  32. petrushka:
    One difference between Science and ID is that scientists value ignorance about the cause of a phenomena as an opportunity.

    ID seems to value ignorance of cause as a bulwark.

    Just an observation.

    But a valid one.

  33. Why else would creationists and IDists celebrate ignorance and try to use it as a positive argument?

    Without proposing any steps to alleviate the ignorance.

  34. petrushka,

    Weapons grade ignorance. But rather than go and learn, he comes here and bellyaches that reality doesn’t line up with his religious preconceptions.

  35. phoodoo:
    Elizabeth,

    I think you need to first decide if evolution is directed or undirected before you start talking about randomness.

    The “magic” word emergence doesn’t erase the problem.

    I’m not following your reasoning, phoodoo. Why do I need to decide whether evolution is directed or undirected before I talk about randomness?

    It seems to rather important to talk about randomness, seeing as different people mean different things by it. Sal implied that random meant “equiprobable”. That’s one (rather non-standard) meaning, but there are many others, including “unintended”. I try to avoid the word myself because it is so easily misunderstood.

  37. Why is this a question for ID supporters?

    A die is a fair die if it is fair. A die is fair if it is a fair die.

    Richardthughes:

    The sum of two dice is random, but not equiprobable.

    It depends.

  38. petrushka quoting me:

    Intelligently designed scientific experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that evolution is unguided.

    I often employ sarcasm and ridicule.

    So if Mung happens by here again, I’d ask, it it possible for an intelligently guided experiment to determine if dice are fair, or a process is unbiased?

    Well here I am. 🙂

    DEM claim that it is so. But first you’d have to define the normal distribution.

    Of course Mark Frank says it’s all subjective. There are a lot of craps players around the world. I bet they would be surprised at that.

  39. Mung,

    Normal dice. If the dice all both “6” on every side for example then not.

  40. petrushka:

    My own thought is that it doesn’t matter whether mutations are stochastic or directed. Mutations explore the entire universe of physically possible changes.

    How could they explore the entire universe of possible changes if they were biased?

  42. So is it possible to determine if dice are loaded or a process unbiased?

  43. Richardthughes on May 8, 2015 at 3:18 am said:
    Mung, FYI:

    What does that have to do with the subject of this thread, if anything?

  44. petrushka:

    So is it possible to determine if dice are loaded or a process unbiased?

    It depends. DEM have provided a way to measure the amount of bias.

  47. Mung:
    hotshoe_

    Not my thing. But if that’s what gets you off…

    Honey, you cannot possibly shame me or surprise me in any way.

    But E for effort, Mung. Don’t go away mad!

  48. hotshoe_ But E for effort, Mung. Don’t go away mad!

    As long as it’s not an E for empathy. It’s ok if you were miswired. Really.

    That’s no reason to take it out on others.

  50. Richardthughes:
    Elizabeth,
    The sum of two dice is random, but not equiprobable.

    Yes, I know. I’d forgotten that we were talking about two dice (though I’d remembered when I made my first response).

    So that makes Sal even wronger – if he calls two fair dice “random” then two slightly unfair dice are also “random”.

    The probablity distribution is just skewed, that’s all.

Leave a Reply