What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Taffer]

Or maybe dimwitted paranoid conspiracy theories aren't true.

Who can say?

I'm fairly sure he's kidding, Dr. A.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ok, so your analogy isn't particularly good, is it?

The 'game' of evolution is very simple. Organisms which are less fit give fewer genes to the next generation. What is random about that?

Let's imagine that there is a beneficial mutation in an organism that makes it more able to find food than its cousins. It will pass more of its genes, including the beneficial mutation, on to the next generation, right?

Actually, no, because it was in an egg that was eaten before it hatched. That beneficial mutation never affected it in any way.

In the game of evolution, we can never say, "this will happen". e.g. we cannot say "this organism will give more genes to the next generation". All we can say is that there is a higher probability that certain genes will be passed to the next generation. There is randomness involved in whether any genes, beneficial or otherwise, get passed to the next generation.

Some people have said that, while it is technically true that evolution is random, describing it that way is misleading to the ordinary person, who lacks the mathematics education to understand the strict sense of the term. Fine. Is there a better term?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm fairly sure he's kidding, Dr. A.

You would hope so.

I have known davidsmith73 for a lot longer than you have.

 

[Taffer]

You would hope so.

I have known davidsmith73 for a lot longer than you have.

Fair enough.

 

[Taffer]

Let's imagine that there is a beneficial mutation in an organism that makes it more able to find food than its cousins. It will pass more of its genes, including the beneficial mutation, on to the next generation, right?

Actually, no, because it was in an egg that was eaten before it hatched. That beneficial mutation never affected it in any way.

In the game of evolution, we can never say, "this will happen". e.g. we cannot say "this organism will give more genes to the next generation". All we can say is that there is a higher probability that certain genes will be passed to the next generation. There is randomness involved in whether any genes, beneficial or otherwise, get passed to the next generation.

How is being eaten random? Being unable to predict does not mean it is random. At least, not by any meaningful definition of "random" that I've ever heard.

Even if I grant your point, which I do not, I would prefer to say that the ratio of beneficial alleles in a population increases over time. That is not random.

Some people have said that, while it is technically true that evolution is random, describing it that way is misleading to the ordinary person, who lacks the mathematics education to understand the strict sense of the term. Fine. Is there a better term?

Evolution is a process wherein randomly generated variation in a population is acted upon by a non-random selection process.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

The title of the thread says it all. I understand that evolution is a process directed through natural selection, but, as I understand it, natural selection is based on the probability, not certainty, of an organism with a specific "fitness complement" (i.e., the set of genes that contribute to its survival and reproduction relative to others of the same species). An individual whose fitness complement confers a greater chance of survival and reproduction is only more likely to survive and reproduce that one with a fitness complement that a lesser chance, but the survival and reproduction is not determined to such an extent that all the individuals with a specific fitness complement don not survive and reproduce. Thus, it is possible for one individual with a certain fitness complement to survive while another individual with the same fitness complement doesn't.

I only ask this, because I am thoroughly disappointed in the evidence that I have received from the posters in this thread. No-one to my knowledge has either explained how a process that operates on probability is non-random or directed me toward a resource that does. They all seem to be more interested, as is most of the literature on the internet that doesn't specifically deal with non-random genetic processes such as mutation and unequal cross over, in refuting the creationist straw man that holds that organisms in their current state are far too complex to have arisen by chance.

I would appreciate it if someone could point me toward some literature (especially of the peer-reviewed kind)that explain clearly and concisely why evolution is non-random.

All biological study shows that evolution is not random but comes from design. Study biology and note that impossibility of one evolving from another. get serious and don't believe the magicians of evolution. Study the specific systems in the bodies of different species and note their differences and instincts as a whole and as separate identities.

Evolution is impossible the more you study and learn.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Fine. Is there a better term?

A single term conveying the precise concept of evolution?

Yes.

"Evolution".

 

[Dr Adequate]

All biological study shows that evolution is not random but comes from design.

... apart from the biological study which is actually done by real biologists studying stuff.

All the imaginary biological study which you made up in your head and didn't actually happen shows that your fantasies are true.

But no, y'know, actual biological study. Which involves studying biology.

Which is why you can't cite a single biological study which supports your crazy lies.

 

[Darat]

Eyes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let's imagine that there is a beneficial mutation in an organism that makes it more able to find food than its cousins. It will pass more of its genes, including the beneficial mutation, on to the next generation, right?

Actually, no, because it was in an egg that was eaten before it hatched. That beneficial mutation never affected it in any way.

Well, benefit from a mutation obviously requires that you happen to survive long enough to reap such benefit.

In the game of evolution, we can never say, "this will happen". e.g. we cannot say "this organism will give more genes to the next generation". All we can say is that there is a higher probability that certain genes will be passed to the next generation. There is randomness involved in whether any genes, beneficial or otherwise, get passed to the next generation.

There is randomness in life. However, if a beneficial mutation can happen, it will happen again. Sooner or later it will happen in an individual which has the luck to survive and benefit from it.

Some people have said that, while it is technically true that evolution is random, describing it that way is misleading to the ordinary person, who lacks the mathematics education to understand the strict sense of the term. Fine. Is there a better term?

Selection. Want to take a dice and roll 20 sixes in a row? No problem, it can be done in less than ten minutes. Just ignore all rolls that were not a six. Evolution is not random, it is selection. The input to the selective mechanism, however, is random.

I once saw a machine for mounting a small spring. The springs were loaded into the machine in bulk. Of course, this meant that they were bundling together in all sorts of ways. So how make a machine for unraveling small springs? Quite simple: Just put them in a vibrator (standard feeding mechanism), install an air-jet to blow then into a funnel that would only accept one spring at a time. Fill with springs and flip the switch. Less than five percent of he springs blown at the funnel made it, but it worked great (of course, unlike natural selection, springs that didn't make it were not discarded; they fell back into the vibrator and got a new chance later).

Hans

 

[Taffer]

Eyes.

I''s? Good manga, that.

 

[davidsmith73]

"Precede", yes. A trait cannot be selected for before it actually exists.

Quite. I shouldn't have used that word.

"Anticipate"? A trait anticipating selection before it exists ... ? What?

I think you should think this through more carefully.

I mean't exactly that! I was being deliberately far out to speculate what such an observation would mean for ID. What if traits were shown to anticipate future environmental conditions that would favour their selection?

For example, the first adaptive mutation experiments (linked previously) showed that lactose intollerant bacteria, exposed to lactose, generate mutations in the genes inhibiting lactose metabolism. But those experiments looked at mutation rates during the evironmental pressure.

What if the number of Lac+ mutants were to rise well above any other type of mutation before the lactose was applied? The ID'ers might take interest, although I do not think such a finding would necessarily mean support for ID.

 

[Meadmaker]

How is being eaten random? Being unable to predict does not mean it is random. At least, not by any meaningful definition of "random" that I've ever heard.

Even if I grant your point, which I do not, I would prefer to say that the ratio of beneficial alleles in a population increases over time. That is not random.



Evolution is a process wherein randomly generated variation in a population is acted upon by a non-random selection process.

Let's imagine that the egg in question belonged to a bird, and the predator was an egg-eating snake. There are five eggs. The snake comes along and eats two eggs, then the momma bird comes back and kills the snake. One of the eggs had a beneficial mutation in it. It seems pretty random to me whether or not that beneficial mutation will be passed to the next generation.

The T. Rex gene pool had a lot of beneficial alleles in it, and if an asteroid hadn't hit, those alleles would have been passed to future generations of T. Rexes, but an asteroid did hit, and the ratio of beneficial alleles to not so beneficial alleles became pretty irrelevant because a random event, an asteroid, wiped out beneficial and other alleles alike, because they were only beneficial in a certain environment, which no longer existed.

The selection process is random, although it is not uniformly distributed. It isn't misleading to call it what it is. It might be widely misunderstood, but it is not misleading. Indeed, to call it non-random suggests, to me, that there is some purpose behind it, and that is far more misleading than calling it random.

 

[davidsmith73]

You would hope so.

I have known davidsmith73 for a lot longer than you have.

I'll leave you guessing

 

[Taffer]

Let's imagine that the egg in question belonged to a bird, and the predator was an egg-eating snake. There are five eggs. The snake comes along and eats two eggs, then the momma bird comes back and kills the snake. One of the eggs had a beneficial mutation in it. It seems pretty random to me whether or not that beneficial mutation will be passed to the next generation.

Just because there are many complicated factors does not make it random. Can you show that the snake would not eat the same eggs each time, if the situation were exactly the same?

The T. Rex gene pool had a lot of beneficial alleles in it, and if an asteroid hadn't hit, those alleles would have been passed to future generations of T. Rexes, but an asteroid did hit, and the ratio of beneficial alleles to not so beneficial alleles became pretty irrelevant because a random event, an asteroid, wiped out beneficial and other alleles alike, because they were only beneficial in a certain environment, which no longer existed.

An asteroid hitting the earth most certainly is not random. This is shown by our ability to predict, with a very high degree of accuracy, where bodies in the solar system will be at any given instance.

The selection process is random, although it is not uniformly distributed. It isn't misleading to call it what it is. It might be widely misunderstood, but it is not misleading. Indeed, to call it non-random suggests, to me, that there is some purpose behind it, and that is far more misleading than calling it random.

Selection most certainly is not random. Selection is the phenomenon where beneficial alleles increase in frequency over time, due to the organisms carrying them, on average, providing more genes to the next generation. How is this random? We can model it accurately, so it would suggest that it is not. It is misleading to call evolution random. It is not misleading to call evolution a combination of non-random selection acting on random variation.

And non-random = determanistic. It does not mean there is some "purpose" behind anything.

 

[davidsmith73]

And non-random = determanistic. It does not mean there is some "purpose" behind anything.

Can we really rule out "purposeful" processes along side natural selection? After all, I don't see where "purpose" has been tested. The only barrier I see is a coherent formulation of how "purpose" would work as a natural phenomena.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

On the contrary.

Have you looked at creationist garbage? Do you know how much of it is based on "linguistic masturbation"?

You could sell this "evolution is random" gibberish to fundies like it was pornography.

Ooooh, I didn't consider convincing creationists that they are correct. You're right, there are some excellent possibilities there.

~~ Paul

 

[Taffer]

Can we really rule out "purposeful" processes along side natural selection? After all, I don't see where "purpose" has been tested. The only barrier I see is a coherent formulation of how "purpose" would work as a natural phenomena.

Like everything, we will assume it does not exist until proven to exist.

 

[Foster Zygote]

... apart from the biological study which is actually done by real biologists studying stuff.

All the imaginary biological study which you made up in your head and didn't actually happen shows that your fantasies are true.

But no, y'know, actual biological study. Which involves studying biology.

Which is why you can't cite a single biological study which supports your crazy lies.

Oh, but Djj has a BS in science (sorry Djj, I meant a BSc). He said so himself. Of course he can't tell us what field of study this degree is in or where he earned it because sinister agents are trying to track him down.

 

[davidsmith73]

AFAIK, no papers have been publish which support the existance of that form of adaptive mutation. I could be wrong, of course, but I'd have thought we'd have been taught about that. All I remember is that the current experiments suggested that bacteria could increase the number of mutations in the presence of stress, which I (ha!) stress is not particularly surprising.

Found an interesting paper discussing the original Cairns adaptive mutation experiments. It seems experiments exists that show increased frequency of advantageous mutation that is not due to an overall increase in genomic mutation rate.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/126/1/5.pdf