Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress

[Vorticity]

This question has been discussed before. See, for example, this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50550

The bottom line is that yes, evolution is indeed random, in the technical sense of the word. In other words, it is a nontrivial stochastic process.

Just because one part of the process (natural selection) is non-random*, does not make the entire process non-random, if other random components (e.g. mutation) are present.

*Although it seems highly unlikely to me that natural selection is perfectly deterministic.

 

[Vorticity]

If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.

The results of the selection process are non-random in the following sense: Given that a coin has come up heads (tails), we know unambiguously that it is going into the piggy bank (river).

However, this does not make the overall process non-random.

If you think it does, perhaps you can tell me ahead of time the value of the variable N which represents the number of coins that will go in to the piggy bank out of 100 flips.

Or is that a random variable?

 

[joobz]

It is known that you can rewrite Fick's Second Law using probability densitites.

very true. But if you can describe the behavior without a random term, then it isn't a random process on that.

You are correct to harp on the stochastic process not being point for point deterministic. but it is disingenious to pretend this means that the overall effect isn't predictable, reproducible and determinable (if that last one's a word ).

we can discuss changes in diffusion with selective membranes, pressure gradients, chemical reactions (features used in industry to obtain highly reproducible outcomes generating high profits). all of which work to change the outcome in observable and predictable ways, even if the underling components are stochastic. No one would claim that any of these effects are "random" in the way you wish to imply it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

We're talking about evolution. You're just talking about natural selection. Most people are aware that evolution involves more than just natural selection.

Wow! Are you really going to start addressing points made concerning your arguments?

Actually, the number of coins that came up heads is a random variable. The amount in the piggybank is a random variable.

So after 10 million coin tosses we cannot expect very nearly 5 million heads and 5 million tails? At any rate, the number of results for each outcome is irrelevant to this model. The composition of the coins placed in the piggy bank is what matters. Probability produces a random assortment of results for the coin tosses. Selection eliminates all those tossed coins that come up tails. The results are that the selected individual outcomes do not reflect random chance.

The selection process is not random, as has been said many times, that is, NS, natural selection, is not random. Evolution, however, is more than natural selection, and therefore it is accurately described as random, where random is not being defined by layman's use of the word random.

What does our inability to exactly model the nature of future mutations have to do with the viability of evolutionary theory?

You've apparently then just agreed that f(random, nonrandom) (ie. selection of random and nonrandom stuff) is still a random variable, going by your own example.

Joobz has provided an example. I'll let you answer him.

Honestly, do you really think that if you were genuinely on to something here that would invalidate the theory of evolution be natural selection that you would be the first person among many, many, thousands of scientists and mathematicians to notice it? Far smarter people than you or I see no problem.

 

[Vorticity]

It is known that you can rewrite Fick's Second Law using probability densitites.

But this response doesn't cut to the crux of the matter:

While a single process may be stochastic, the evolution of the mean of an ensemble of such processes is necessarily deterministic by definition (although perhaps not Markov). Ficks law is fundamentally a relation describing the mean evolution of the concentration field of some material, and as such must be deterministic.

Any given real-world instance of a system nominally governed by Fick's law will display deviations from it, to a degree that depends on the size of the system, the temperature, and other factors. However, an ensemble average of many such instances will indeed obey Fick's law.

 

[Vorticity]

What does our inability to exactly model the nature of future mutations have to do with the viability of evolutionary theory?

Who said anything about the viability of evolutionary theory?

I think you're falling for the IDer fallacy regarding the meaning of the word "random". "Random" doesn't mean "completely unpredictable".

Suppose I'm going to roll a die. Lets call the number that comes up X. It'll be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Then, let's define another number Y = X + 997. We know ahead of time that Y will be around 1000.

And yet, it is indisputably a random variable.

 

[Vorticity]

very true. But if you can describe the behavior without a random term, then it isn't a random process on that.

But you're not describing the process. You're describing the ensemble mean of many such processes.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The bottom line is that yes, evolution is indeed random, in the technical sense of the word. In other words, it is a nontrivial stochastic process.

Thank you.

Yet Dawkisn and others go out of their way to say it is non-random. I can only imagine that they do it because they want to avoid arguments from creationists who misunderstand the word random, or because some evolutionists over-emphasize the impact of selection on evolution.

 

[T'ai Chi]

but it is disingenious to pretend this means that the overall effect isn't predictable, reproducible and determinable (if that last one's a word ).

Stochastic is stochastic. If you can predict something to within .00001, but you can't predict it for certainty, it is stochastic.

No one would claim that any of these effects are "random" in the way you wish to imply it.

I'm stating it in the technical definiton of random, ie a variable has a probability distribution, not any layman's term of random that you'd like to impute to me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So after 10 million coin tosses we cannot expect very nearly 5 million heads and 5 million tails?

Yes, you can expect that, sure given a fair coin, but the actual number is a random variable.

Honestly, do you really think that if you were genuinely on to something here that would invalidate the theory of evolution be natural selection that you would be the first person among many, many, thousands of scientists and mathematicians to notice it? Far smarter people than you or I see no problem.

Huh? I see nothing in what I wrote that shows I am trying to invalidate the theory of evolution. Quit being so dramatic. What I did write shows that pleas by Dawkins and Miller that 'calling evolution random is false' is itself false.

 

[joobz]

I'm stating it in the technical definiton of random, ie a variable has a probability distribution, not any layman's term of random that you'd like to impute to me.

Fair enough. I retract my statements I have made on your intentions. I apologize for making such assumptions.

Yet the simple fact that you can describe a process without need of probability terms highlights the deterministic nature of that process. I do not see the advantage defining it as anything other than that.

 

[Civilized Worm]

What part of "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators" didn't you get? Was it the part about how the replicators vary randomly?

It shows that accusations of brain rot, abuse, or whatever, are wishful thinkings, at least going by some of the productions from the greatest religious minds ever.

When has Dawkins ever accused all religious people of being idiots? Anyway Newton was also big on alchemy so although brilliant he was hardly a paragon of rationality, at least not by today's standards.

 

[T'ai Chi]

When has Dawkins ever accused all religious people of being idiots?

Never suggested he did.

Anyway Newton was also big on alchemy so although brilliant he was hardly a paragon of rationality, at least not by today's standards.

Then I suggest that the New Rationality fails miserably because we apparently have not had someone with the impact Newton had.

 

[Jekyll]

Honestly, do you really think that if you were genuinely on to something here that would invalidate the theory of evolution be natural selection that you would be the first person among many, many, thousands of scientists and mathematicians to notice it? Far smarter people than you or I see no problem.

Tai chi doesn't actually disbelieve the theory of evolution, he just wants to be able to say that Dawkins was wrong about something, anything at all in fact.

Even if wrong just means 'using the layman's definition of the word random'.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Tai chi doesn't actually disbelieve the theory of evolution, he just wants to be able to say that Dawkins was wrong about something, anything at all in fact.

Even if wrong just means 'using the layman's definition of the word random'.

I could swear that some months ago I posted a quote by Dawkins from The Blind Watchmaker in which he addresses the issue. It made it clear that Dawkins had no intention of denying that there is a random element involved in evolution. What he did want to address was the creationist claim that evolution is entirely random, the "tornado assembling a working 747" argument. Of course, T'ai probably didn't read it if he had me on ignore.

 

[darnell11]

What on earth does that prove? Einstein was an atheist and he achieved far more than Russell Stannard, therefore atheism wins!

I'm confused, I thought Einstein believed in god, that he was disturbed when he realized the universe behaved in a more random and chaotic ways than people believed (which is agaisnt god's plan or design, or whatever) and that was why he wanted to come up with a theory that explained everything and held everything together in an orderly fashion, because he so believed that god was the creater of the universe. Did I learn wrong? I think he said some sort of quote like, (paraphrase) "God does not play dice." I don't think Einstein was an athiest.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm confused, I thought Einstein believed in god, that he was disturbed when he realized the universe behaved in a more random and chaotic ways than people believed (which is agaisnt god's plan or design, or whatever) and that was why he wanted to come up with a theory that explained everything and held everything together in an orderly fashion, because he so believed that god was the creater of the universe. Did I learn wrong? I think he said some sort of quote like, (paraphrase) "God does not play dice." I don't think Einstein was an athiest.

Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God" meaning that he used the word "God" to refer to the physical laws of the universe. He stated that he did not believe in any sort of personal god.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thank you.

Yet Dawkisn and others go out of their way to say it is non-random. I can only imagine that they do it because they want to avoid arguments from creationists who misunderstand the word random, or because some evolutionists over-emphasize the impact of selection on evolution.

.....why would Dawkins and others go out of their way to avoid arguments from creationists who misunderstand the word random?

 

[CFLarsen]

If a series of coins are tossed that have a 50/50 chance of coming up heads or tails, but only those that come up heads are selected to be placed in a piggy bank and the coins that come up tails are thrown into a river, then the results of the selection process are not random.

Random mutations create the variety of genes available for natural selection to act on, but non-random selection determines which genes will reproduce in each successive generation.

That was a very accurate account of what evolution is.

I'll steal that.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Then I suggest that the New Rationality fails miserably because we apparently have not had someone with the impact Newton had.

What are you saying? That science needs more alchemists?