• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution: Technically Random?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
From the viewpoint of the organism, evolution is not a random process. From the viewpoint of the environment, it is.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the organism has a viewpoint that makes it aware of all the things happenning to it. For example, I'm not aware of all posible cellular activity that is going on inside me now.

I guess I'm not sure I really get the whole 'random from a viewpoint' thing. I'm not even sure it makes sense to say something like the environment has a viewpoint. I think I get what you're trying to say overall though, that there is some view from which it is not random.

The examples I've seen so far, in real life, and things like the page you linked to with that simulation of information increase, all have outcomes that cannot be predicted with certainty, and therefore can rightly be called random.
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
They might indeed do that, but that would be them getting confused on what random means, not me getting confused on what it means. :)
Click to expand...
If I may take it that the smiley means that you know that you're speaking the exact opposite of the truth, then we're done here.

It is incorrect to say that evolution is random because that sentence, as understood by English-speaking people, conveys false information. Unless and until you can persuade the world to speak T'ai Chi-ese, "evolution is random" will remain a false statement.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Ah, so if the output takes a random walk around nonrandom values, you're calling the function random. That may be technically correct, although I thought a random function was more specifically defined than that. I'm fairly certain that a "random process" involves only a family of random variables.

Anyone know?

I've lost track of the point of this conversation. Why is this important?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Yes, it is called Wiener Process.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Thought people might find this interesting for discussion. I've posted the page over at Skepticfourm a while ago for discussion too and got some good comments.

I basically got tired of reading a lot of popular books that saying evolution is random is beyond wrong. Now, I do believe it is incorrect to say that natural selection is random. But evolution is more than natural selection from what I understand.

I reason that if Evolution can be mathematically conceived as

Evolution = NS(RM, OS)

where NS is Natural Selection, RM is Random Mutation, and OS is Other Stuff,

(That is, NS is a function acting on things, some of which are random. Or put another way, evolution is the non-random selection of random variation and some other things)

the going by this conception, doesn't that make Evolution random (ie. unable to be predicted with certaintly beforehand), and therefore saying evolution is random is not wrong, but in fact a true and reasonable statement?

For example, say I have fair coin, with Heads or Tails which I code as 0 or 1. Then I calculate some function, I choose 2^outcome+10. The output is still random, either 11 or 12.

Take any non-trivial function f, and calculate f(something random). Won't the output f be random?

I write about this here http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm
Click to expand...
This bears some consideration,

first: random mutation is constrained mutation, in that the mutations that lead to variablity are limited by the expression of traits in a biological fashion.

second: there is a factor of existing traits that later become useful in a new enviroment, these are not a product of random mutation but common variation. Take the double recessive for white or black in fur in squirels. It is currently just part of common variation, but in an artic enviroment the white variation might be chosen over the balck. So there is much more to evolution that random mutation.
 
Dr Adequate said:
It is incorrect to say that evolution is random because that sentence, as understood by English-speaking people, conveys false information. Unless and until you can persuade the world to speak T'ai Chi-ese, "evolution is random" will remain a false statement.
Click to expand...

Except there is no "T'ai Chi-ese" here. I'm using the common mathematical definition of random and basic results from probability theory.

That some people may get hung-up on what they think the word random conveys (that is, they believe it means haphazard, or all at once, etc.) is not my concern.
 
Last edited:
T'ai said:
I guess I'm not sure I really get the whole 'random from a viewpoint' thing. I'm not even sure it makes sense to say something like the environment has a viewpoint. I think I get what you're trying to say overall though, that there is some view from which it is not random.
Click to expand...
Yes, viewpoint is a funky word in this context. My point is that mutations are errors, and the common definition of a stochastic process excludes processes whose randomness is due only to errors. So from the mutation angle, evolution is not a stochastic process. But from the environment angle it is, because the randomness in the environment would not be considered errors.

Except there is no "T'ai Chi-ese" here. I'm using the common mathematical definition of random and basic results from probability theory.
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me that the mathematical term "random process" should be rigidly applied to a biological process.

That some people may get hung-up on what they think the word random conveys (that is, they believe it means haphazard, or all at once, etc.) is not my concern.
Click to expand...
But it should be, if you are trying not to mislead people. Even if they know that random doesn't mean haphazard, they may not know the mathematical definition of random process.

What difference does it make if evolution is technically a random process? The entire universe is a random process.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
It is incorrect to say that evolution is random because that sentence, as understood by English-speaking people, conveys false information. Unless and until you can persuade the world to speak T'ai Chi-ese, "evolution is random" will remain a false statement.
Click to expand...

Because "evolution" is by definition not-random. Any "random" events are only important to evolution when working backward from survivability. This is in some ways a tautology, like saying "If the random event is selected, then it is selected, and therefore relevent to TOE. If the random event is not selected, then it is not selected, and therefore not relevant to TOE."

Of course I realize it is much more complex than this, but that seems to be the crux of it. So I'm really struggling to see anything as truly "random" in an overall meaningful sense in TOE (sense it requires a tautology by definition) in spite of the fact that some portions of TOE depend on randomness prior to selection. Jeez I'm confused.


Flick
 
T'ai Chi said:
I'm thinking things like genetic drift, migration, and other mechanisms of change that I've left out because I don't know what they are.
Click to expand...
Your equation in the OP is not the equation for evolution. Your definition for "other stuff" is also irregular, at best. "Genetic drift" is not a mechanism per se; it is the result of stochastic processes.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Yes, viewpoint is a funky word in this context. My point is that mutations are errors, and the common definition of a stochastic process excludes processes whose randomness is due only to errors. So from the mutation angle, evolution is not a stochastic process. But from the environment angle it is, because the randomness in the environment would not be considered errors.
Click to expand...

No, it can't even be considered stochastic even from the environment angle. The environment influences the process. Is a process that is influenced random?

If I "influence" dice with my fingers, is that "random"? Of course not.
 
T'ai Chi said:
"Genetic drift" is not a mechanism per se; it is the result of stochastic processes.

Genetic drift is described as a mechanism on many pages.

For example


(source http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html)
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the per se bit, along with the bit in the page cited about it being a stochastic process, along with the bit in the page cited about the controversy over the relative importance of drift. :rolleyes:

Drift acts totally randomly only given certain population assumptions. The population needs to be small for drift to result in fixation. Otherwise, in a large population, drift imposes a squiggle on the frequency line, sometimes tacking up, sometimes tacking down.

Even in small populations, where drift fixates an allele, let's say, out of the population, it runs up against mutation placing it back in.

But, of course, you totally ignored the first point I made: your equation does not represent evolution.
 

Drift acts totally randomly only given certain population assumptions.


Ok, so I'm not seeing your point then. If it can act randomly, and evolution is a function of it, then evolution is random.


But, of course, you totally ignored the first point I made: your equation does not represent evolution.

This has already been addressed.

My equation is only a conceptualization of evolution, that is evolution is natural selection acting on things, some of which are random.

I'm all ears on what a better conceptualization would be.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Except there is no "T'ai Chi-ese" here. I'm using the common mathematical definition of random and basic results from probability theory. That some people may get hung-up on what they think the word random conveys (that is, they believe it means haphazard, or all at once, etc.) is not my concern.
Click to expand...
So incredibly false.

First: the 'common mathematical definition' of most things is a very bad definition to use when those who haven't studied mathematics are involved.

Guy: "I've got the worst headache..."
Mathematician: "Um, probably not, you see, as 'worst' necessarily implies no headache has been as bad, and since you said 'the' instead of 'a', your headache must in fact be strictly worse than any other headache."
Guy: "STFU."

Second: it is without doubt your concern. If you want to convince those who talk to non-mathematicians to use precise language, you must take into account eventual perceptions of that language. Language is for communicating effectively and when it fails to accomplish that goal it has FAILED. If people believe that random means haphazard or all at once then you must either combat that belief or be careful with your use of the word random. It's your responsibility.

Of course, if you're just talking to rational students of mathematics, you're okay, but there are very good reasons to tell the world that evolution is not random. Fight in their paradigm, not yours.
 
Evolution is random in the same way as a gas expanding to fill a container is.

That is, generally, it isn't.

If you take a large scale approximation, the expansion of a gas appears smooth and natural, it obeys certain physical laws and moves towards local entropy maximas.

If you take a small scale model, and accurately model it and the particles around it, you find it pretty much follows Newtonian physics. Again not random.

It's only if you take a middling view point and try to track only some of the particles that you find it is best approximated by a random walk.

The same holds for genetics. Each and every mutation happens for an (irrelevant) reason. On the smallest relevant scale it is not random. On the largest it tends to a local solution of maximum entropy, it's only in the middle that it's convenient to model it as a random process.
 
T'ai Chi said:

Drift acts totally randomly only given certain population assumptions.


Ok, so I'm not seeing your point then. If it can act randomly, and evolution is a function of it, then evolution is random.

Click to expand...

One wonders how nuclear bombs go off.
But, of course, you totally ignored the first point I made: your equation does not represent evolution.
Click to expand...
This has already been addressed.

My equation is only a conceptualization of evolution, that is evolution is natural selection acting on things, some of which are random.

I'm all ears on what a better conceptualization would be.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd first venture to say the theoretical population geneticists might have an equation or two worth considering. Actually, maybe even three base equations, given that there are three principle forms of selection. Whoa, who would've thought of maybe diving into the research or the textbooks to unocover how it might work. I should patent that approach, doncha think?
 
GreedyAlgorithm said:
it is without doubt your concern. If you want to convince those who talk to non-mathematicians to use precise language, you must take into account eventual perceptions of that language.
Click to expand...

When I say very clearly that I am talking about mathematical sense of random, if people perceive "random" in another way, then that is their misunderstanding, their issue, not mine.

I could be blamed for not listing every usage of random and saying 'I'm not using it in any of these senses', which I'm not likely to do for obvious reasons.
 
One wonders how nuclear bombs go off.


Who wonders that?


Well, I'd first venture to say the theoretical population geneticists might have an equation or two worth considering. Actually, maybe even three base equations, given that there are three principle forms of selection. Whoa, who would've thought of maybe diving into the research or the textbooks to unocover how it might work.


I'm sure they do.

I'm sure each one would involve some random terms, hence the output would be unable to be predicted with certainty beforehand, hence deserving the title of random.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom