What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

The truth most certainly DOES need to be debated.

No the truth is a joint venture of discovery; you can't "win" it or "lose" it. It stays true no matter what people believe. Debate is for opinions. The OP pretended to be the former (help me explain why evolution is not chance to creationists)--but then mijo readily admitted it was the latter. ("there's a conspiracy against my great arguments"). He's done it before and you have too. You pretend you are going on a venture to further understanding, but you are really trying to shore up some belief you have or assure yourself that science hasn't answered some question to your satisfaction and therefore some alternate explanation stands a chance. Behe does it with IC--Kleinman does it with math. It would help if you guys chose the same area of "anti DNA chauvinism" or whatever word you guys use to prop up your egos these days... it would help the evolutionary conspiracy.

 

[articulett]

And for the record. Here's the answer to your OP.

Although parts of evolution involve randomness it would be misleading to say "evolution is random", because the daft associate that with the 747 analogy. It's misleading if not incorrect. Selection IS the opposite of random.

 

[mijopaalmc]

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.

The fact is it isn't a misleading question. I have provided a specification of the definition of random that I mean when I use the word (i.e., "Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution") and synonyms that I prefer to use instead of the word that have very specific definitions and should further clarify what exactly I mean (i.e., "probabilistic" and "stochastic".) No-one has been able to explain why natural selection, which works by conferring a probability of survival on an individual, is neither probabilistic nor stochastic. I do however agree that "random" is too imprecise a word to use in a rigorous or even casual exposition of evolution. Since it is synonymous (but not exactly interchangeable)with "probabilistic" and "stochastic", I have been using it interchangeably with "probabilistic" and "stochastic" and intending to only use it with the specificity implied by "probabilistic" or "stochastic". This has apparently caused much confusion for which I apologize.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No the truth is a joint venture of discovery. Debate is for opinions. This op was supposed to be the former (help me explain why evolution is not chance to creationists)--but then mijo readily admitted it was a debate. He's done it before and you have too. You pretend you are going on a venture to further understanding, but you are really trying to shore up some belief you have or assure yourself that science hasn't answered some question to your satisfaction and therefore some alternate explanation stands a chance.

So you're saying that I am whiteyonthemoon?

You just attributed something he wrote to me.

Dishonest much?

 

[articulett]

The fact is it isn't a misleading question. I have provided a specification of the definition of random that I mean when I use the word (i.e., "Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution") and synonyms that I prefer to use instead of the word that have very specific definitions and should further clarify what exactly I mean (i.e., "probabilistic" and "stochastic".) No-one has been able to explain why natural selection, which works by conferring a probability of survival on an individual, is neither probabilistic nor stochastic. I do however agree that "random" is too imprecise a word to use in a rigorous or even casual exposition of evolution. Since it is synonymous (but not exactly interchangeable)with "probabilistic" and "stochastic", I have been using it interchangeably with "probabilistic" and "stochastic" and intending to only use it with the specificity implied by "probabilistic" or "stochastic". This has apparently caused much confusion for which I apologize.

For the same reason that the evolution of computer technology is not probabilistic or stochastic--for the same reason that the evolution of a church or a language is not probabilistic or stochastic.

A puzzle can be made of miscellaneous pieces...but the picture on the puzzle is not miscellaneous.

Having components affected by various degrees of probability and/or randomness does not mean that a process is random.

Your goal was to explain things to a creationist right? So why aren't you understanding that saying evolution is random is a bad way to do it. Tell them having "chance components" is not the same as things happen by chance. The tornado through the junkyard analogy would be more correct if there were endless tornados, and every time a piece of a 747 landed in the right place it would stick and all the other pieces would just blow away. The latter part is selection through time and a huge number of experiments. That is the important part of evolution. That is how complexity assembles. It is the same whether it's technology, ideas, landscapes, rivers, or galaxies. Change through time via selection filters.

If Dawkins explanation doesn't work for you, I doubt you can explain anything to a creationist. Don't apologize. Just be honest. You'll feel better for it.

 

[articulett]

Mijo--on this thread you've pretty much wasted everyone's time by saying, gee, I can't explain why evolution isn't random to a creationist because it is...knowing that to them random means the 747 analogy.

This is exactly like your thread where you asked for help explaining the discontinuity in the fossil record--and then summed up with, "the fossil record is discontinuous and scientists can't explain it.

You had great answers from sincere, smart, honest people who defended you (yet again) and you dismissed it all with your claim that nobody can explain how evolution isn't random. You are playing semantic games, reading for the information you want to hear and then protesting when people call you on it.

By the way, I will take all the blame or credit for calling you a creationist (or "intelligent design proponent" as you guys prefer to call yourselves.)

Why wouldn't you read the talkorigins website--after being directed there repeatedly in various threads where your very questions are answered by peer reviewed scientists? Or are they part of the DNA chauvinistic evolutionarian Dawkins conspiracy too?

 

[mijopaalmc]

For the same reason that the evolution of computer technology is not probabilistic or stochastic--for the same reason that the evolution of a church or a language is not probabilistic or stochastic.

A puzzle can be made of miscellaneous pieces...but the picture on the puzzle is not miscellaneous.

Having components affected by various degrees of probability and/or randomness does not mean that a process is random.

Your goal was to explain things to a creationist right? So why aren't you understanding that saying evolution is random is a bad way to do it. Tell them having "chance components" is not the same as things happen by chance. The tornado through the junkyard analogy would be more correct if there were endless tornados, and every time a piece of a 747 landed in the right place it would stick and all the other pieces would just blow away. The latter part is selection through time and a huge number of experiments. That is the important part of evolution. That is how complexity assembles. It is the same whether it's technology, ideas, landscapes, rivers, or galaxies. Change through time via selection filters.

If Dawkins explanation doesn't work for you, I doubt you can explain anything to a creationist. Don't apologize. Just be honest. You'll feel better for it.

But natural selection is based on probabilities and not certainties of survival. The very fact that one individual with a given fitness complement survive while another with the same fitness complement perishes makes natural selection a stochastic process. If evolution were a deterministic process all the individual with given fitness complement would die, and this does not happen.

How is this not a clear explanation? How is this incorrect?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Or are they part of the DNA chauvinistic evolutionarian Dawkins conspiracy too?

whiteyonthemoon said this. Get your attributions correct!

 

[articulett]

So you're saying that I am whiteyonthemoon?

You just attributed something he wrote to me.

Dishonest much?

I'm not dishonest at all. If I err, I'm glad to know. But in this case, I did not attribute something he wrote to you. I was responding to him--which is why his name and his quote was in the response. Just because you started a thread doesn't mean every message is for you...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But natural selection is based on probabilities and not certainties of survival. The very fact that one individual with a given fitness complement survive while another with the same fitness complement perishes makes natural selection a stochastic process. If evolution were a deterministic process all the individual with given fitness complement would die, and this does not happen.

How is this not a clear explanation? How is this incorrect?

But that is only an epistemic concern. We speak in terms of probabilities because we lack full knowledge. It isn't as though this means 'chaotic' in the sense that no order may arise from it.

If you mean 'random' in only an epistemic sense and not an ontological one, then I don't think anyone has a problem with it.

 

[articulett]

whiteyonthemoon said this. Get your attributions correct!

I was lumping all the creationist terminology in one group and speaking to you guys as a whole--those of you who think there is a conspiracy to get people to "believe" in evolution or whatever conspiracy it was you and others allude to when they are pegged as creationists.

Are you dumb? I mean, I clearly was speaking to whitey in the paragraph I was responding to before and clearly speaking about you in the third person. I was addressing what he wrote and bringing him back on topic by referring to what you wrote. This isn't really supposed to be about whether evolution could be called random--it was about helping creationists understand why their understanding of that term was incorrect. Or at least that is what you pretended this was about in the opening post. Remember?

Let's recap. Whitey jumped in to defend your assertion that there was a sort of scientific conspiracy or forum conspiracy or whatever--we hear that a lot, frankly, but it's usually from people whose beliefs we don't buy into. Whitey said that I called him "garden variety woo"-- I told him and you that if you didn't want to be considered woo or creationists or whatever else the evil skeptic conspiracy is trying to thwart, then I suggest you be more clear in your questions and what you really want answered. Otherwise, you lead people into thinking you are sincere--spending a lot of time explaining things to you carefully, and then you dismiss them with an arrogant wave, claim there was a conspiracy and that no answered your (stupid) question. Although you and whitey sound similar to me (and John Hewitt too) in that you are smarter than most who preach here--I can tell you apart. You each have your own little evolution bugaboos...that you you just won't let anyone answer while never understanding why it's a bad (creationist-type) question.

If I sounded as dishonest as you, and I wasn't being dishonest--I would have clarified a long time ago and not slammed people for presuming I had egotistical reasons for posting blather that belied my opening post.

You did exactly what I predicted you'd do earlier in this post. "Thanks, but no thanks--you didn't answer my question, because evolution is random."

repeat after me, "random components do not a random process make..."

I guess you can safely dismiss us the way you dismissed all those "other ignoramuses" on that other thread in your opening post. If you aren't a creationist, you sure are as arrogant as one.

Having kids involves lots of random elements, I wouldn't say having kids is a "random process". You could make an argument for it being semantically correct, but why would you. It obfuscates, it doesn't clarify It leaves out some of the more important knowledge we have about the process, don't you think? When you say evolution is random, it's about as useful as saying reproduction is random. It doesn't further understanding. It's meaning is vague at best.

Read that again and again until you understand it. Saying evolution is random is truly on par with that. We're not against it because it's a creationist word--but because the way you use it conveys as much useful information as "reproduction is random." Really. Nobody cares if that is a "true" or false statement. It's just a confusing way to convey the facts.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But that is only an epistemic concern. We speak in terms of probabilities because we lack full knowledge. It isn't as though this means 'chaotic' in the sense that no order may arise from it.

If you mean 'random' in only an epistemic sense and not an ontological one, then I don't think anyone has a problem with it.

I mean "probabilistic" or "stochastic" in the sense of "based on probability". In my last post before this one, I boiled down why I think those words describe evolution. I don't think that being probabilistic or stochastic precludes order developing from disorder, and therefore I don't think preclude evolution from happening. I just don't understand why stating the fact that something that operates on probabilities is by definition probabilistic or stochastic, in those words and not using the namby-pamby "random" (which is how I will do it from now on), provokes such ire.

Once again, evolution is possible even if the underlying objects and the processes that operate on them are probabilistic or stochastic. I am not denying that evolution happens only insisting that it is inaccurate to describe it as "non-random", because it is not "non-random" for the reasons mentioned above in this posts and my other posts on the board.

 

[articulett]

Say, who are these creationists you are supposedly trying to explain how evolution is "not-random" to? And how could you expect them to understand that it is a stupid question designed not to have a "right" answer when you can't fathom that answer yourself.

Prove to me that reproduction isn't random--find me a peer reviewed paper that says "evolution is random"....Prove to me that there are such things as "random processes". The word processes makes the random part a bit of an oxymoron-- process and selection are words that negate "randomness"-- so is choice, so is fittest, so is luckiest, They are all modifiers that decrease randomness in any process. Prove to me that ideas evolve randomly. It's not that scientists can't answer that question or that evolution really "is" random--it's that the question itself doesn't mean anything, so the answer will never satisfy you nor any creationist.

And if you are not a creationist (though I am certain you are) what makes you think any explanation will work for them. All of us here have not been able to show you why your insistence on saying "evolution IS random" is just dishonest--obfuscating--a weirdly worded phrase that you can't outright deny--but it's as vague as saying "evolution is selection"-- (I'm sure you can do a google or pub med search and find many sources listing both of those words, but it still doesn't mean anything.) It would be idiotic to say, "prove to me (with peer reviewed sources) that Evolution is not selection so I can convince scientists that it's random." When you try to answer that question you will understand exactly how you sound to many of us. You will understand exactly why we can't answer that question to your satisfaction--and exactly why you sound like a creationist--and exactly why not being able to answer the question doesn't mean that the opposite is true.
Moreover, you will have not a single iota of information that will help you supposedly convince creationists or scientists of anything.

 

[Meadmaker]

See, Schneibster, he is a creationist.

 

[articulett]

I mean "probabilistic" or "stochastic" in the sense of "based on probability". In my last post before this one, I boiled down why I think those words describe evolution. I don't think that being probabilistic or stochastic precludes order developing from disorder, and therefore I don't think preclude evolution from happening. I just don't understand why stating the fact that something that operates on probabilities is by definition probabilistic or stochastic, in those words and not using the namby-pamby "random" (which is how I will do it from now on), provokes such ire.

Once again, evolution is possible even if the underlying objects and the processes that operate on them are probabilistic or stochastic. I am not denying that evolution happens only insisting that it is inaccurate to describe it as "non-random", because it is not "non-random" for the reasons mentioned above in this posts and my other posts on the board.

Then evolution is selection by the exact same arguments Having random components doesn't make the process random. And selection is the opposite of random or at least negates by some definitions--therefore no information has been communicated. If evolution is selection per your way of defining things and evolution is random per your way of defining things--then how does that help you explain things to the supposed creationists you are trying to explain evolution to?

You are playing semantic games so that you can conclude "evolution is random". You could play the game using the same rules (pieces define the whole) and say evolution IS selection (or selective in adjective form.)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I mean "probabilistic" or "stochastic" in the sense of "based on probability". In my last post before this one, I boiled down why I think those words describe evolution. I don't think that being probabilistic or stochastic precludes order developing from disorder, and therefore I don't think preclude evolution from happening. I just don't understand why stating the fact that something that operates on probabilities is by definition probabilistic or stochastic, in those words and not using the namby-pamby "random" (which is how I will do it from now on), provokes such ire.

Once again, evolution is possible even if the underlying objects and the processes that operate on them are probabilistic or stochastic. I am not denying that evolution happens only insisting that it is inaccurate to describe it as "non-random", because it is not "non-random" for the reasons mentioned above in this posts and my other posts on the board.

It doesn't provoke so much ire as intense reaction because of previous fights. I'm sure you know the tornado producing a 747 analogy. That analogy is based on two straw man characterizations -- that evolution has a particular goal in mind and that order cannot arise from chaos because chaos is chaos.

The problem is that creationists spend most of their time on sophistry, so what you are seeing is reaction to previous attempts at sophistry.

Keep in mind that these probabilistic issues with mutation result only from our limited knowledge not from some intrinsically chaotic ontological substructure to reality. Well, there may be an intrinsically chaotic ontological substructure to reality (QM), but that would necessarily be true for everything and not only evolution.

Ultimately, if the world is deterministic, then evolution is not truly random. It is just as determined as anything else. But from our limited perspective it appears as probabilistic and not determined. In a sense, everything is random if by that we mean probabilistic where our knowledge is limited.

Personally, I don't understand why this is an issue in the first place. Controversy can only arise when folks misuse the terms for ideological purposes.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Say, who are these creationists you are supposedly trying to explain how evolution is "not-random" to? And how could you expect them to understand that it is a stupid question designed not to have a "right" answer when you can't fathom that answer yourself.

You are extrapolating from my OP in Fossil and Evolution. There I did ask a question here I asked for people to provide evidence of the claim that evolution is non-random. These are two different things. I also prefaced that OP with an explanation of my desire to explain evolution to creationists. In this thread my aim was different. I wanted to question a commonly held view of people here that didn't seem to square with what I thought the words they were using meant.

 

[articulett]

Oh, I think you probably are too--weren't you the one who denied that creationists exploit the word random to extrapolate the 747 analogy even though I gave a talk origins link that showed just that and the whole OP was supposed to be about mijo explaining to creationists that evolution is not-random so they don't conclude that "everything happened by chance with the 747 extrapolation"?

I know Schneibster isn't But he's not arguing that creationists don't abuse the word--he may not even be aware of their misuse of this notion. And he's not arguing that "evolution IS random"--he agrees that saying components of evolution are random is more descriptive. And it's all fine and dandy when everyone is on the same page. But the OP was not about scientists discussion and meaning of random--it was about explaining to creationists how their understanding is incorrect.

Do you still think they don't exploit the word "random" almost as much as they exploit the word "theory"? Did you read the discontinuous fossil records? Are you listening to the voices of the many people who debate creationists all the time? Are you hearing what the biologists are saying? This thread isn't really about the meaning of that word. Why and how that word should be used is tangential. This OP was (supposedly) about explaining evolution to creationist who think that scientists believe we all got here by "chance". Remember?

If Mijo really wanted an answer to that question, then his responses, failure to clarify, and dismissal of answers is hard to fathom. It's very easy to fathom if he's a creationist. They do this exact crap all the time. Some are nicer, some are smarter, some are less dishonest, less arrogant and less likely to get their feelings hurt... but none of them really seem to want to have their questions answered--moreover, they refuse to understand why it's a bad question. To me, they all sound like the Behe transcript but with a different bugaboo about evolution...this time it's about people just coming into existence "by chance"--each creationist has their own "evolution can't be the total answer" desire that they insert their intelligent designer into.

How is it you account for his opening question and subsequent response. What do you think of his berating answers on another thread in his opening post. What do you think of his dismissal of every answer as not answering his question...of his conclusion that scientists don't like to use the word "random" because creationists use it--rather than the fact that we don't describe evolution as random because it has random components, but it is driven by selection in the environment? Why can't he hear that saying "evolution is random" is a statement that conveys no meaning? What is your suggestion for conveying the random aspects of evolution while making sure creationists reallly understand the part they miss--selection--the opposite of random--Evolution is a selection process not a random process.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, articulett, your argument is "you're a creationist, because I don't agree with you"?

 

[mijopaalmc]

There seems to be some disagreement about what I said in my OP, so here it is:

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.