What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

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?

Well, for one, you aren't promising eternal glory in exchange for faith (and purposeful stupidity)--and for another, you aren't threatening eternal damnation for those who doubt your teachings.

Does that simplify things? We teach them what a scientific theory is too. We can't promise the goodies that make things stick.

 

[articulett]

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.

I agree. I think everyone here knows what you mean when you say evolution is random. However, it is a statement that is so abused by the ID movement as shown in my prior links, that I would never say it that way. Moreover, I think Dawkins' statement that "natural selection" is the opposite of random is more "semantically" true in regards to layman understanding of the terms (his audience) then to say "evolution is random". The "evolution is random" argument tends to lead to the 747 analogy or the Shakespeare from monkeys analogy in the creationist world. That's why I would never describe it that way. It obfuscates rather than clarifies just as saying "the fossil record is discontinuous". When something is prone to too many meanings, it because useless as an explanation. If the goal is understanding, then precise language is important. If the goal is to move the goalposts and find a weakness in "evolution" then you want as much latitude in language as possible. Hence the whole abuse of the word "theory". Sure, teach people what the word random means--but until they actually understand what it means, please don't say "evolution is random". To the uneducated and those with ID leanings, this is their ticket to insert whatever magic or math problem they think makes evolution wrong. Trust the people who are involved in the most debates with creationists on this one. Talkorigins mentions it. Dawkins. Really. I don't know why someone would insist on making a case for saying "evolution IS random"--it's a red herring. To me it's like someone insisting on saying, "but evolution is just a theory, right?" Agreeing with the statement means that in their head you agree with their interpretation of that word. When you say "evolution is random", a creationist hears, the 747 analogy. Really. Remember, they've been finding divine wisdom in a bronze aged text and hidden truths in a barbaric manuscript for quite a long time...

Does Mijo want to understand evolution or does he want to insist on calling it random. If it's the latter, why? Especially when it's so prone to muddying. And if you want to see unclear language...read whiteyonthemoon and tell us what he's saying.

THAT is why I, personally, would not agree with describing the entire process of evolution as random. Randomness, plays a part. But it's not the most important part of the concept--and it's one that is readily abused by dishonest creationists.

 

[articulett]

Another creationist argument goes like this, "science can't tell me the purpose of life"--

It's true. But that doesn't mean that there IS a purpose or that anyone else can tell you either--though, of course, people will be glad to pull your purpose straight from their hind quarters and present it to you for a small fee, allegiance, or loyalty to a dogma.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Join the discussion, answer the question, that will show you and your thoughts which are much more important than the motives. The motives are what I am reffering to are this:

1. What are you really asking?
2. Where do you want your conversation to head?
3. What are the issues you want to discuss?
4. What are your thoughts on the five subplots in the thread?

You can't possibly be serious. This comment implies that you have not actually read anything that or anyone else who claims that evolution is random has written. I specifically cited Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress because there are several posts that give dictionary definitions of "random" (#47, #49) and discuss why all but the mathematical and statistical definition do not describe evolution (#65, #69, #71, #73,
#75). I also made it quite clear that I favored "stochastic" or "probabilistic" over "random" because they have very specific definitions that avoid the common associations and therefore misinterpretations of "random" (#103, #189, #234, #252). Furthermore, I explained in great detail several times in this thread exactly why evolution is probabilistic or stochastic (#158, #230). I wonder why these 13 responses have been ignored in favor of calling me a creationist and such non-sequiturs and straw men as:

Scientists won't claim that evolution is not random anymore than they'll write peer reviewed papers that say evolution is not blue.

No-one would ever describe evolution as "blue" just as no-one would ever describe gravity as "square". "Random" describes (however inaccurately, which is why I prefer stochastic) the specific mathematical selection processes that govern evolution. Furthermore, searching PubMed for (evolution AND (deterministic NOT (probabilistic OR random OR stochastic))) OR (evolution AND ((probabilistic OR random OR stochastic) NOT deterministic)) in the text, the title and abstract, and the title yields 4375, 3055, and 121, respectively; searching PubMed for (evolution AND (deterministic NOT (probabilistic OR random OR stochastic))) in the text, the title and abstract, and the title yields 162, 132, and 2, respectively; searching PubMed for (evolution AND ((probabilistic OR random OR stochastic) NOT deterministic)) in the text, the title and abstract, and the title yields 4216, 2923, and 119, respectively. There ratio is therefore approximately 26 articles that contain "evolution" and "probabilistic", "random", or "stochastic" in their text to every one articles that contain "evolution" and "deterministic" in its text. The ratio decreases slightly to 22:1 if the only the title and abstract are searched and increases to 60:1 if only the title is searched. Thus it seems that the bulk of the literature describes evolution as "probabilistic", "random", or "stochastic" rather than as "deterministic".

There are two possible reasons that I can come up with off the top of my head:

1. Evolution really is probabilistic, random, or stochastic.
   
2. The most interesting and therefore the most studied aspects of evolution are probabilistic, random, or stochastic.

I am not sure which it is, but these literature searches seem to suggest that "non-random" is a poor description of evolution.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

The truth most certainly DOES need to be debated. Advocacy and open discussion have always been the means to expand understanding. People have died for saying their beliefs, many of which turned out to be true. We will stop needing debate once we know everything.

I can't resist putting this in here:
"We've got everything down to a science
so I guess we know everything...
We got everything like trial by fire
so I guess we'll stop trying now" - Modest Mouse

I'm not trying to obfuscate anything if I say that evolution is random. I believe that, and certainly it's a statement that bears clarification on a number of levels, but I think it's accurate. If a creationist asks me if I claim that we come from hydrogen gas in the distant past, I say "Yes". If an ID person asks me if evolution is random I'd say "Yes, but" and try to explain. I haven't read Jaques Monod, but I think his statement "Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere." is essentially true, and I prefer it to Dawkins' framing, though I think they are talking about different things (Dawkings referring to evolution as a sort of filter and Monod referring to mutations of DNA, that which is being filtered).

It's interesting that my paragraph about DNA chauvinism has been used as a fill in the blanks form, a sort of scientific paradigm mad lib. Yes, it's true that you can plug in different words into that statement for most areas of science. In fact, I think that is what is done. Try plugging in words from older paradigms in science (miasma, impetus, geocentrism) and I think you'll see the utility of the approach. I don't see how it obfuscates.

I really don't care if anyone thinks I'm a creationist, so long as they evaluate my statements based on their perceived validity and not my presumed motives. If I were to choose someone to be like though, in this case it would be Monod, who's work has saved maybe tens of thousands of lives, rather than be like Dawkins or whoever writes on Talk Origins.

My original post in this thread was not a drive by post. What I see happening is that people who see things differently or use a politically disadvantageous term are attacked. There is an attempt made to get people to follow the party line. If people get together and decide that as a group they will say certain things and not others in order to obtain a goal, political, social, educational, or otherwise, it seems to me that those people are conspiring.

Dancing David's room for compromise post is something I can agree with nearly without reservation, other than that the causal arrows suggested can actually be two way arrows. For example, factors of physical morphology lead to changes in genetic expression levels (thanks again Monod).

Epigenetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Especially the "Philosophical implications" section.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You can't possibly be serious. This comment implies that you have not actually read anything that or anyone else who claims that evolution is random has written. I specifically cited Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress because there are several posts that give dictionary definitions of "random" (#47, #49) and discuss why all but the mathematical and statistical definition do not describe evolution (#65, #69, #71, #73,
#75). I also made it quite clear that I favored "stochastic" or "probabilistic" over "random" because they have very specific definitions that avoid the common associations and therefore misinterpretations of "random" (#103, #189, #234, #252). Furthermore, I explained in great detail several times in this thread exactly why evolution is probabilistic or stochastic (#158, #230).

I've read everything that you have written quite carefully, and I still want to know where you want the conversation to go and why you are so concerned that evolution be called random.

A bunch of us have expressed these questions quite a few times now. Do you think possibly we would honestly like to know where you want to go with this?

Perhaps the next step is to discuss the fascinating conclusion that all natural processes are random. After all, why should poor evolution be the sole focus of attention?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Thus it seems that the bulk of the literature describes evolution as "probabilistic", "random", or "stochastic" rather than as "deterministic".

Or possibly they describe mutation that way.

Seriously, no one is arguing that evolution is deterministic. A hundred times we've said that we don't like simply "random" because it's misleading, not because it's wrong. Let's move on.

~~ Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Or possibly they describe mutation that way.

Seriously, no one is arguing that evolution is deterministic. A hundred times we've said that we don't like simply "random" because it's misleading, not because it's wrong. Let's move on.

~~ Paul

Actually there is a lot of literature on nonrandom mutations.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My original post in this thread was not a drive by post. What I see happening is that people who see things differently or use a politically disadvantageous term are attacked. There is an attempt made to get people to follow the party line. If people get together and decide that as a group they will say certain things and not others in order to obtain a goal, political, social, educational, or otherwise, it seems to me that those people are conspiring.

Yeah, I'm scared of the Evolution Wedge Document, too. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!

Look, here's the thing. I don't want people to call evolution simply "random," because I think it's misleading. I want people to give a little fuller explanation of the processes involved. I don't really see how that makes me part of a conspiracy. I'm quite sure creationists don't like their "theory" described by a single misleading word, either. Words like "belief" and "goddidit" come to mind.

We have all acknowledged that evolution is a random process. What we would like to know now is why this is so important to Mijo. "I just want to make sure we're technically accurate" just doesn't wash. What's next?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Actually there is a lot of literature on nonrandom mutations.

Indeed, but the words you searched may still be describing mutations.

~~ Paul

 

[mijopaalmc]

Can someone explain or point to a source that explains why some that is inherently based in probability, such as natural selection, isn't probabilistic?

Is the problem with "random" that it is used by creationists in a straw man argument or that there a deep seeded dislike of thing that are not certain?

Would it be better if we called evolution "probabilistic" or "stochastic" instead of "random"?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Can someone explain or point to a source that explains why some that is inherently based in probability, such as natural selection, isn't probabilistic?

It certainly is probabilistic to some extent, also deterministic to some extent. Of course, a deterministic process is probabilistic, too. It just has one outcome with probability 1.

Is the problem with "random" that it is used by creationists in a straw man argument or that there a deep seeded dislike of thing that are not certain?

That's it! Creationists love to call evolution random and willfully ignore any complaints that that is a misleading, oversimplified description of evolution. Your insistence on using the simple word "random" makes you appear to be a creationist. I recommend a different tactic. (I'm not saying you are a creationist.)

Would it be better if we called evolution "probabilistic" or "stochastic" instead of "random"?

When talking to a novice, I recommend you use more than one word. The novice doesn't understand any of those terms. When talking here, you might use stochastic so you don't have to listen to people like me give you crap.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's imagine evolution as a simple process of random mutation and selection pressures applied by a random environment. There is nothing but randomness, yet the organisms tend to evolve to "match the environment," in the sense that organisms with features that fit the environment tend to survive to procreate, whereas organisms with features at odds with the environment do not.

In this scenario, it seems quite reasonable to say that mutations are random, the environment is random, but the organisms are not random with respect to the environment. This is the piece of the explanation that is critical.

Without it, genetic algorithms would not work, and models of evolution, such as Ev, would get nowhere.

~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Can someone explain or point to a source that explains why some that is inherently based in probability, such as natural selection, isn't probabilistic?

Is the problem with "random" that it is used by creationists in a straw man argument or that there a deep seeded dislike of thing that are not certain?

Would it be better if we called evolution "probabilistic" or "stochastic" instead of "random"?

The problem as I see it is fear of silly creationists arguments because so many of us have had to endure them and they are tiring. Since there are many meanings for the word 'random' there is room for twisting the ultimate meaning. Creationists twist terms to suit their needs, plain and simple. Just look at Kleinman. His 'argument' is pure sophistry.

The whole debate really revolves around what many debates seem to --confusion of intellectual spheres. 'Random' as it relates to evolution is an epistemic term. We call it random because we cannot predict what will happen -- because we lack knowledge. Creationists, however, tend to use the term 'random' in an ontological sense -- something 'random' can never produce order because it is random. They seem to think once random always random because random is what the nature of evolution is (and since random seems to mean, for them, chaos and chaos is an ontological category, there is no hope for anything but chaos from this supposedly chaotic process). People fudge terms all the time. Look at the debates on this forum. They almost always concern differing meanings of words. Often there is an underlying, unspoken assumption such as the confusion between epistemic and ontological issues beneath the differences in term usage.

If everyone understood that 'random' processes produce order on a regular basis then no one would have any problem with using the word 'random' in this sort of debate. But when you have a group of people who view 'random' in ontological terms since they are searching for an easy straw man, then the other side tends to raise its shackles.

 

[articulett]

Mutations also have a "non-random" component as mentioned. Some places are hotspots--they invite crossovers--other places seldom change because they are of major importance to the survival or reproduction of an organism. There are processes like methylation that have a non-random way of changing the genome--genes on the Y chromosome in humans have been slipping away through the eons--and genes on the X chromosome seem to be very active in speciation for many mammals. There is a reason for the mutations that happen--whether it's radiation, or because it can, or because of it's location on the chromosome, but it's random in that it's not predictable.
But it's not random, because we will only see the organisms that have "hot spots" (places ripe for change) in organisms for whom such hot spots have an advantage.

Selection is random in that meteors are unpredictable so are which predators are going to eat what prey and what will evolve in the ensuing "arms" race. But we know that it's not magic--we know that organisms that live in increasingly cold areas will evolve protection from the cold or die out. They develop this way "because" of the cold--but not on purpose--the ones whose random mutations made them better able to fit the colder environment spawned the next generation--those who didn't luck out in that way, didn't.

Unless you are talking with someone who really understands evolution (and mijo, I don't consider you to be such a person)--I think it's best to boil evolution down to "random mutation coupled with natural selection" to avoid the digressions the word random invites.

You wanted to know (presumably how evolution is "not random")--and it was explained. To you it all boils down to "evolution IS random"-- which is a sloppy way of acknowledging that randomness plays a role. You seem to be very vague as to why selection is an important part of the definition and why it confuses things to call selection random.

Natural selection is a lot like artificial selection--except there is no conscious choosing--the environment the organism finds itself in is "selecting" which mutants will survive and spawn--and which will not. Reproductive fitness is the major selection--but so is survival. Luck plays a role (meteors, etc. Even the fittest ants can have humans obliterating them in one step sending wiping their beneficial mutations out of existance in an instant.) Sometimes really great humans die young due to accidents and the like before passing on genes. Accidents are "random"--or rather they have a random component--we know they increase when people drive drunk, at certain crossroads, etc.

Mijo, why would you use the word when you are already having communication problems with it. People are having trouble understanding what you are saying.

And the same seems to go for you whiteyonthemoon. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I really think it's you. You may not be a creationist, but you say sort of nonsensy things that sound exactly like their arguments. Instead of becoming offended, you may want to choose your words better. If people aren't understanding you, you could be the incompetent person in my sig link.

I understand Schneibsters questions and the use of the word random quite well. I haven't seen you guys or anyone be able to sum up what it is you are trying to "debate" or even ask or find out. I don't even understand your problems with evolution, but I understand the topic quite well when scientists discuss it. I understand Paul and Dr. A and Dawkins very easily. I understand the genetics articles in nature and New Scientist and Scientific American. I think I'm representative of whatever audience you are attempting to talk to, and I'm telling you that your reasoning is unclear. Mijo, nobody knows why you started your opening post as you did...you seem eager to call evolution random, but you haven't explained why.

And whiteyonthemoon, you seem like a nice enough guy, but I have no idea what you are saying. I suspect others don't either. Clarify. It's not a conspiracy--it's you.

 

[articulett]

Dancing David's room for compromise post is something I can agree with nearly without reservation, other than that the causal arrows suggested can actually be two way arrows. For example, factors of physical morphology lead to changes in genetic expression levels (thanks again Monod).

Epigenetics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Especially the "Philosophical implications" section.

But this thread wasn't about Dancing Davids compromise--I agree, it's fine...depending on your audience. The thread was about Mijo's opening post--how is evolution not-random. I think it's been answered. It's not so much that it's "not random" it's that randomness is only a part of the processes, and it's a word with too many meanings for anyone to get any information from the claim "evolution is random". It confuses the issue. I think Dawkins' way of saying it clarifies understanding. I suppose we could tell people evolution is random or that selection is the opposite of random and see who understands evolution better--but so far, I've not heard any of the "evolution is random" supporters offer a simple and quick way to describe evolution on par with Dawkins explanation--Dawkins explanation sweeps away one of the biggest (see talk origins) abuses of the word "random" and "chance" by intelligent design proponents. Can you do the same?

And what the hell does "DNA chauvinism" mean anyhow? It sounds like those idiotic "intelligent design" made up words--"evolutionarian", "Darwinism", etc.
Are there Atom chauvinists? Acceleration chauvinists? RNA chauvinists. Do you have any facts to go with your loaded pedantry?

 

[articulett]

Can someone explain or point to a source that explains why some that is inherently based in probability, such as natural selection, isn't probabilistic?

Is the problem with "random" that it is used by creationists in a straw man argument or that there a deep seeded dislike of thing that are not certain?

Would it be better if we called evolution "probabilistic" or "stochastic" instead of "random"?

Your whole pointed (supposedly) for this post was about explaining why evolution wasn't chance to a creationist--not much different that your post (supposedly) about "discontinuity in the fossil record". Both are threads you started. But your conversation really doesn't look like one who is trying to explain anything to anyone. I think you should have no problem talking to creationists because you sound exactly like them.

If you are actually trying to explain evolution to creationist (not that it works) Dawkins explanation is a thousand times better than saying "evolution is random, stochastic or chance-driven"--they are already aware of that aspect--what creationists and you are both confused about is selection--why it's misleading to call it random, why it muddies the issue--

It's like saying snowballs are made "randomly"--they're not--first a ballish piece of snow starts rolling down a hill from a force of some sort--either intentional or not...

We have told you how evolution is not random. Is that not the question you were asking. You associated chance and randomness yourself--you seem to have a half-hazard view of randomness. You seem to have a purposeful blind spot when it comes to the difference between randomness in regards to mutation and random elements in an environment that drive evolution.

You know how creationists sound because you are (supposedly) trying to educate them and yet you take offense when told you sound like them? They obfuscate with words--ask questions for ulterior motives and are all over the place with their statements. Your coherence sounds very much like a creationist. We asked you to clarify. We answered your question in the OP repeatedly. And this is the same arrogance and pouty feelings you showed in the discontinuous fossil record. Many people wasted their time trying to explain things to you and defend you but you dismissed them all by saying they absolutely didn't answer your question (which was a misleading question very similar to many creationist questions in the first place.)

If your feelings get hurt when you are called an ID proponent, it isn't because of a conspiracy or "DNA chauvism" or anything except you sound exactly like an ID proponent nursed on the wedge strategy--deny, deny, obfuscate, blather, ask inane questions and pretend the unsatisfying answers mean that you are right about something.

I can see all this explanation boiling down to--yep, scientists admit we got here by random chance. Just as your last thread ended with--yep, the scientists have no explanation for the discontinuity in the fossil record (therefore god did it.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

We answered your question in the OP repeatedly.

Actually no you didn't; none of you did. I asked a rather simple question about why people insisted that evolution was "non-random" when such a claim clearly contradicts the technical definitions of random, and I got the response "because it is". That wasn't helpful at all. No-one actually cited anything that explained why evolution was "non-random" other than documents that said natural selection didn't provide an equal chance of every individual surviving, which is great if the question of why evolution is not uniformly distributed (if that even makes sense) but doesn't answer the question of why it is not random. In sum, you provided no evidence of what I asked you to provide. That is why I kept asking the same question repeatedly.

 

[articulett]

Mijo, you just seem very interested in no one being able to answer your question and very uninterested in why it's a misleading question.

And until you overcome that blind spot in yourself, I suspect you won't stand a chance of providing decent answers to a creationist--though, as you illustrate--even the best of answers won't satisfy a person with a misleading question and the belief that scientists can't answer it (and therefore their clergy can.)

 

[articulett]

Actually no you didn't; none of you did. I asked a rather simple question about why people insisted that evolution was "non-random" when such a claim clearly contradicts the technical definitions of random, and I got the response "because it is". That wasn't helpful at all. No-one actually cited anything that explained why evolution was "non-random" other than documents that said natural selection didn't provide an equal chance of every individual surviving, which is great if the question of why evolution is not uniformly distributed (if that even makes sense) but doesn't answer the question of why it is not random. In sum, you provided no evidence of what I asked you to provide. That is why I kept asking the same question repeatedly.

See, Schneibster, he is a creationist. That's what everybody gets for their careful links and explanations as to how parts are definitely more random than others and how his supposed audience has a misinformed view of the word random so it shouldn't be used to explain. The bottom line is, you can't explain anything to a creationist. The more you try the more they'll insult you and insist that you didn't answer it while never really admitting it was a dishonest question.

It's just as Dawkins described when he thought he was making a documentary and then someone asked "how does information get added to the genome" (another inane misleading creationist question that shows a profound lack of scientific understanding just in it's asking) Dawkins paused suddenly realizing what he was up against, and they used that pause to their advantage and implied the great scientist had no answer. But the question was truly on par with "how far to the end of the earth..." The question itself is ignorant, and no simple answer will fill the gap. But certainly it would be deceptive to say the lack of the answer meant it was (insert some distance mentioned in some screed.)

Dishonesty in the name of god.

P.S. Mijo, I find it very hypocritical that you whine about people not reading you and those ignoramuses on that other thread--while you seem to read tiny bits and pieces that give you the information you want to hear (or not hear). In this case, you want to believe that "evolution is random" whatever the hell that means to you and the supposed creationists you are trying to educate. Evolution is not random--not the evolution of cities, the internet, the landscape, ideas, or life. Having random components does not a random process make.

--And how rude for you to send people off searching for peer reviewed articles when you have scarcely absorbed peoples' careful explanations here.--you can't understand the basics, and you want to wade through peer review...to supposedly explain things to creationists??? I would say that Behe is a fabulous example as to how ineffective peer review is affecting the minds of the brainwashed for christ.

Where's the peer reviewed article that says "evolution is random". Parts of it are random--some parts much much much more than others.