Biologists and statistics
So, I am reading this interesting review by University of Chicago’s Jerry Coine of a book proposing the Intelligent Design (a.k.a. the new creationist) "theory". The book in question, by Lehigh University’s biologist Michael J. Behe, basically argues that random mutations cannot lead to the complex changes we observe in the fossil record. The reviewer, then, tries to clarify what they (biologists) mean by random.
What we do not mean by "random" is that all genes are equally likely to mutate (some are more mutable than others) or that all mutations are equally likely (some types of DNA change are more common than others). It is more accurate, then, to call mutations "indifferent" rather than "random": the chance of a mutation happening is indifferent to whether it would be helpful or harmful.
Indifferent?!? Come on! Wouldn’t it be better to use an actual statistical term for a, uh, statistical concept? Yes, like independent. [tex]P(A|B)=P(A)[/tex]. My dictionary informs me that indifferent can mean three things: a) "having no particular interest"; b) "neither good or bad". (Both would seem more fitting to an ID proponent, don’t you think?) or c) (in archaic biology neutral in respect of some specified physical property.) Our ability to create unnecessary new terms never ceases to amaze me.