What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[T'ai Chi]

No, it's really a stochastic process. And if you would like to call it such when explaining it to a novice, be my guest. Then the novice can ask what a stochastic process is and expect to get a full explanation from you.

Again, it needs to be pointed out to you and probably others that harp on irrelevant things, that it is irrelevant that some people, novices probably included, are fuzzy or ignorant of the precise meaning of the technical terms under discussion. That is, that somebody is ignorant of the technical meaning of the term is irrelevant to that fact that stochastic means random, and evolution is a stochastic process, and therefore it is correct to call it a random process.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Let's not forget how this whole thing got started. In my review of The God Delusion I took Dawkins to task for going on and on about how evolution was not "chance". In "The Blind Watchmaker" he actually said that calling evolution chance was "the exact opposite of truth".

And look at what Ken Miller has stated

Evolution is not a "random" process, and to characterize it so seriously misleads students. Natural selection, the most important force driving evolutionary change, is not random at all, but an observable, verifiable process that fine-tunes variation in populations of a species to the demands of the environment in which they live. It is true, of course, that variation in a species arises from sources such as mutation and sexual recombination, which are inherently unpredictable. Therefore evolution, like any historical process, can be influenced by random forces.

From http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/disclaimer.html

So I'm wondering, to put this in objective terms instead of some wishy-washy English, for what non-trivial function f, can f(random, non-random) be non-random?

They both seem to be emotionally wanting f(random, non-random) to be non-random becuase they deem the non-random input more important than the random input.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

I kinda thought that it was the ID people who thought evolution couldn't possibly be random. Why are some naturalists so insistent on agreeing with them?

BTW, this whole thing about scientists not using the word random to describe evolution is untrue. 4314 results on pubmed searching for "random AND evolution". Some of them even discuss these terms in the sense that are used in this thread. Take for example this quote:

"Which characteristics will be selected depends on which variations happen to be present at a given time in a given place. This in turn depends on the random process of mutation as well as on the previous history of the organisms. Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life. This was Darwin's fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious." - Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer, Ayala FJ
Published in PNAS

(I don't recommend reading the rest of the abstract. If you know anything about the Copernican revolution it will just make you angry.)

 

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry to come in very late. But I'm as confused as whiteyonthemoon above. What is the OP actually asking?

Mutation is random, yes. But natural selection is not.

Anyone care to clue a latecomer in on the deal? Appreciate it.

 

[articulett]

In the other thread where we talked about evolution my point was not so different from the one being made here. I don't think that there is any trait that guarantees reproductive success and traits that seem to be liabilities can suddenly become great advantages in the right circumstances. It's a game of chance, randomness plays a part.

Then we agree. Randomness plays a part. But to say evolution IS random is misleading.

The truth doesn't need converts nor does it need to be debated. It's not something you can win or lose either. It can only be understood--

Because you say things that obfuscate rather than clarify you really should not blame me if I think you sound like a creationist. This is the exact tactic they use. And I noticed you avoided clarifying your position. Why in the world would there be a conspiracy about the truth? The truth is the same for everybody, right? Are you claiming evolution is wrong in some way or just that we haven't explained everything yet? If it's the latter then I think you'll find everyone in agreement.

 

[articulett]

In the other thread where we talked about evolution my point was not so different from the one being made here. I don't think that there is any trait that guarantees reproductive success and traits that seem to be liabilities can suddenly become great advantages in the right circumstances. It's a game of chance, randomness plays a part. I'm unwilling to pretend that I think it does not play a part in order to sell the theory to someone who doesn't believe in it. I will not let someone who disagrees with me claim the word "random" or "chance" for their camp. I will not suddenly assign guilt by association to someone who uses a buzzword from a position that I don't agree with. In fact, I don’t do guilt by association at all. When evaluating arguments I use a merit based system.

My first paragraph does describe the wedge strategy. My problem with the people behind the wedge strategy is not their belief, but their methods. I won't use those same methods.

I don't have any problem with evolution where there are clear cases. An example would be convergent evolution, structures that really do work best a certain way and are evolved multiple times independently. I do have a problem with what DNA chauvinism, which ignores epigenetic mechanisms. Understanding epigenetic mechanisms might help us refine another systematic approach to understanding the diversity of life that could be a quantum iteration beyond evolution as it is currently understood. I don't have this theory in hand, but science hasn't ended yet. Un-critical pedagogy won't help us advance our understanding at all.

Nor will semantic games and claims of taking the high road while using words to say nothing at all. Nobody claims science has ended Whether we will find another systematic approach to understanding diversity is irrelevant until the time that evidence shows that there IS some other systematic approach. Let's apply your statement above to the theory of gravity or germ theory

I do have a problem with what acceleration chauvinism, which ignores non-earthly mechanisms. Understanding non-earthly mechanisms might help us refine another systematic approach to understanding why things fall instead of float--this could be a quantum iteration beyond gravity as it is currently understood. I don't have this theory in hand, but science hasn't ended yet

I do have a problem with what microbe chauvinism, which ignores epigenetic mechanisms. Understanding epigenetic mechanisms might help us refine another systematic approach to understanding disease that could be a quantum iteration beyond germ theory as it is currently understood. I don't have this theory in hand, but science hasn't ended yet

Can't you see how this obfuscates rather than answering any questions or clarifying anything of value?

Yes, our understanding of evolution will evolve--whether it will involve "quantum iterations" is another thing. You can use whatever words you want.
But if your aim is to clarify rather than obfuscate, then I suggest you don't claim "evolution is random" just because parts of it are random. And unless you want to muddy thinking, I think the consensus is that the word random is loaded with so many meanings that it isn't particularly useful if the goal is to understand how evolution works.

 

[articulett]

Meadmaker, I think saying "evolution is random" is more obfuscating and incorrect that Dawkins statement that calling it random is "the opposite of truth". That is, I think a case can readily be made to show that natural selection is the opposite of random and hard to prove that evolution is random.

Sure semantic arguments could be made to make either statement "true" or correct. But you have to bend over backwards a lot more to call evolution random.

I think his explanation for why the word random shouldn't be used to describe evolution is much more convincing for your argument that it's fine to use that word. If the word confuses the issue and makes it harder for people to grasp basic facts, then why would you or anyone else insist on using it. What's wrong with using clearer language. I think that Dawkins is really good at explaining the facts about evolution. I haven't heard you try to do it, so I have no opinion as to whether you'd be better at it or clearer or if you have a stronger explanation. If you would say "evolution is random" then I think you would certainly lose when it comes to getting understanding from average people. How could he have said it better? Why would you describe it as random when the word can be so confusing?

 

[articulett]

From talk origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.

This obfuscation via use of the word random (or "random chance") is heard by anyone who debates creationists. The argument goes like this--"how do you think we got here--random chance??!?" Well, sure it's a part of the equation, but it leaves out the most important detail--random selection. And the question itself is loaded.

More from talk origins on this same topic: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

What more evidence would anyone need to understand that this is a common creationist argument--a part of the wedge strategy regarding obfuscation...it doesn't serve to clarify anything when there are too many interpretations and extrapolations on the words you choose to explain.

And if you have any doubt that creationists exploit the word random--look at Tai Chi's posts.

And Evolution is not "random" for the same reason evolution is not "chance" in the above linked article. The 747 analogy is an exploitation of "randomness". You are either ignorant or a creationist (or an ignorant creationist) if you insist that this word isn't a word often used and abused by "proponents of intelligent design".

 

[articulett]

I kinda thought that it was the ID people who thought evolution couldn't possibly be random. Why are some naturalists so insistent on agreeing with them?

BTW, this whole thing about scientists not using the word random to describe evolution is untrue. 4314 results on pubmed searching for "random AND evolution". Some of them even discuss these terms in the sense that are used in this thread. Take for example this quote:

"Which characteristics will be selected depends on which variations happen to be present at a given time in a given place. This in turn depends on the random process of mutation as well as on the previous history of the organisms. Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded orchids, birds, and humans. The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity, randomness and determinism, jointly enmeshed in the stuff of life. This was Darwin's fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative, although not conscious." - Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer, Ayala FJ
Published in PNAS

(I don't recommend reading the rest of the abstract. If you know anything about the Copernican revolution it will just make you angry.)

ID talks about bottom down design--with a "more complex" designer on top. Evolution is about design from the bottom up. Moreover, the above text clearly states that it's "mutation" (the random component) coupled with SELECTION are the drivers. Leaving out selection and just saying that evolution is random is misleading. Evolutionists talk about natural selection and artificial selection--Creationist think there is some sort of preplanned destination. Naturalists do not agree with creationists. Creationists leave out the selection process and insert god--plus everything happens for some "divine" reason.

You've changed my mind. I now think you might be a creationist..due to your first paragraph when you incorrectly presume that naturalists are agreeing with creationists. Just because there are random components to evolution does not mean it makes sense or is conducive to understanding to claim that "evolution IS random".

 

[articulett]

Sorry to come in very late. But I'm as confused as whiteyonthemoon above. What is the OP actually asking?

Mutation is random, yes. But natural selection is not.

Anyone care to clue a latecomer in on the deal? Appreciate it.

Well, basically, everyone has told him that. But some people insist on saying "evolution IS random" for some convoluted reasoning that nobody else seems to understand. Natural selection has random components and so some people play a semantic game to say that Natural selection IS random--and therefore evolution IS random. A case could be made where that statement is "true"--but the claim is so confusing and so likely to obfuscate rather than clarify that I can't fathom why anyone would insist on saying "evolution is random". Yet some people seem bent on having someone scientific say exactly that--or to back them into a corner and admit that if the proper understanding and semantics are applied, evolution could said to be "random".

 

[Schneibster]

It ain't gonna happen, my friend. People think random means haphazard.

~~ Paul

I had two reactions to this.

Waspish: well, it sure ain't gonna happen if nobody bothers to explain it to them.

I don't know how to characterize the second one, but here it is: this is taught in school. What are we doing wrong?

 

[Taffer]

When someone questions your motivations as a means of invalidating your argument, that is an ad hominem because something about your person does not ever invalidate your argument.

From what I read, he did not claim your argument was invalid. You incorrectly inferred that part on your own.

 

[Taffer]

In the other thread where we talked about evolution my point was not so different from the one being made here. I don't think that there is any trait that guarantees reproductive success and traits that seem to be liabilities can suddenly become great advantages in the right circumstances. It's a game of chance, randomness plays a part. I'm unwilling to pretend that I think it does not play a part in order to sell the theory to someone who doesn't believe in it. I will not let someone who disagrees with me claim the word "random" or "chance" for their camp. I will not suddenly assign guilt by association to someone who uses a buzzword from a position that I don't agree with. In fact, I don’t do guilt by association at all. When evaluating arguments I use a merit based system.

My first paragraph does describe the wedge strategy. My problem with the people behind the wedge strategy is not their belief, but their methods. I won't use those same methods.

I don't have any problem with evolution where there are clear cases. An example would be convergent evolution, structures that really do work best a certain way and are evolved multiple times independently. I do have a problem with what DNA chauvinism, which ignores epigenetic mechanisms. Understanding epigenetic mechanisms might help us refine another systematic approach to understanding the diversity of life that could be a quantum iteration beyond evolution as it is currently understood. I don't have this theory in hand, but science hasn't ended yet. Un-critical pedagogy won't help us advance our understanding at all.

Can you please explain to me why you think epigenetics is not included in modern evolutionary theory?

 

[Dancing David]

When individuals give up intellectual honesty to help spread ideological conformity, yeah, it starts to become a conspiracy.

OOOOK?

And what is that supposed to mean in this thread? Who here has given up intellectual honesty to help spread idelogical conformity? Did you read any of this thread, or is this just a drive by post?

 

[Dancing David]

I do have a problem with what DNA chauvinism, which ignores epigenetic mechanisms. Understanding epigenetic mechanisms might help us refine another systematic approach to understanding the diversity of life that could be a quantum iteration beyond evolution as it is currently understood.

OOOOK?

Please translate and provide reference to your language?

Is this what you are talking about?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...sult&cd=1&q=epigenetic+DNA+chauvinism&spell=1

http://www.representinggenes.org/biohumanities/podcasts/PDFs/rosenberg.PDF
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200507.htm

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry to come in very late. But I'm as confused as whiteyonthemoon above. What is the OP actually asking?

Mutation is random, yes. But natural selection is not.

Anyone care to clue a latecomer in on the deal? Appreciate it.

Hiya DD Prime!

According to Whitey on the Moon, this is a continuation of another disoute on another thread (Thanks Whitey!)

Mijopaalmc started the thread and many of us did not know where it was headed.

Sub plots to this point:

1. Is a random process random if parts of it are random and parts of it are non-random?
2. Sub plot variant of 1, which parts of the process are random and which are not?
3. What is the nature of the usage of the word random?
4.Is it helpful to call evolution random? (Currently the most heated discussion. I am a randomite like Meadmaker.)
5. Why people disagree or agree with the use of the word random when applied to evolution.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, basically, everyone has told him that. But some people insist on saying "evolution IS random" for some convoluted reasoning that nobody else seems to understand. Natural selection has random components and so some people play a semantic game to say that Natural selection IS random--and therefore evolution IS random. A case could be made where that statement is "true"--but the claim is so confusing and so likely to obfuscate rather than clarify that I can't fathom why anyone would insist on saying "evolution is random". Yet some people seem bent on having someone scientific say exactly that--or to back them into a corner and admit that if the proper understanding and semantics are applied, evolution could said to be "random".

Hmm, well there is a room for compromise, hopefully.

I use constrained variability, which is a variation on the 'contingent evolution' of Gould.

The process of evolution has causal determined parts and unpredictable probability in other parts.

The mechanisms of biology and the actual impact of a shift in genetic expression through the genome and physical morphology is deterministic. The interaction of the organism in it's enviroment is mostly deterministic, given accurate data on the nature of the enviroment.

The enviroment is made up of a complex variety of players in various states of expression of characteristics and interaction. The enviroment's stability of expression in the players is less deterministic, in that the various players (IE rainfall, plant species, fungi, bacteria, viruses, wildfire, drought, explosion and decline of species, etc. , etc.....) are probablistic in nature. Organisms will find themselves competing for resources and reproduction (poor use of language) in a highly variable enviroment.


The interaction of the detrministic elements of evolution and the contraints of prior history of a genetic line in organisms happens in the largely unpredictable enviroment. This leads to various points of view on the use of the word random when applied to the theory of natural selection and the process of evolution.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Again, it needs to be pointed out to you and probably others that harp on irrelevant things, that it is irrelevant that some people, novices probably included, are fuzzy or ignorant of the precise meaning of the technical terms under discussion. That is, that somebody is ignorant of the technical meaning of the term is irrelevant to that fact that stochastic means random, and evolution is a stochastic process, and therefore it is correct to call it a random process.

Again, I agree that it's really a stochastic/random process. And if you would like to call it such when explaining it to a novice, be my guest. Then the novice can ask what a stochastic process is and expect to get a full explanation from you.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They both seem to be emotionally wanting f(random, non-random) to be non-random becuase they deem the non-random input more important than the random input.

What do we say when we have a stunningly complex suite of processes that involve a good-sized dollop of randomness (mutation, genetic drift, etc.) and a much larger-sized process that is largely deterministic when looked at from the point of view of the Earth, but somewhat more random when looked at from outside the Earth? We agree that, overall, evolution is a random process.

Is it helpful to tell someone that it's "random"?

Is it better to tell someone that it's a "random process"?

Is it accurate to tell someone that it's "largely deterministic"?

Is it helpful to tell someone that evolution is/is not a "game of chance"?

No, I think it's better to explain more carefully how evolution actually works.

Then, if the person has a reason for wanting to think of evolution only as "random," perhaps he would explain it to us. The reason "it's most accurate to think of it that way" just doesn't wash.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Waspish: well, it sure ain't gonna happen if nobody bothers to explain it to them.

I don't know how to characterize the second one, but here it is: this is taught in school. What are we doing wrong?

I would guess that someone taught about random processes in school, who doesn't have a reason to disbelieve it on purpose, probably gets it. That's not too large a percentage of the population, unfortunately.

~~ Paul