What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Meadmaker]

So why do you think mijo has dismissed all answers as "charicatures and strawmen"?

I always hestitate to speculate on someone else's state of mind, but then I give up the hesitation and do it anyway. Mijo, I apologize in advance if I mischaracterize the reasons for answering as you have.

I think it is because so many of the responses to mijo have been laced with personal attacks. If you go back to the last thread, that triggered this one, you'll see such phrases as "you don't understand science". In this thread, there has been suspicion of motive and suggestions that he is a creationist. This also implies that he is a liar.

If you want an intelligent conversation, give up all the parts where you accuse people of lying. In general, it's probably a good idea to avoid all of the "you" references that describe character. If you want to avoid the "strawman" accusuation, skip the parts where someone says, "When you said this, you obviously were really saying that."

If you go back and read some of my stuff in the archives, you'll find some fairly incoherent responses. It's really hard to write a coherent response to a post that explains why you are obviously a fundamentalist Christian in disguise. I've learned in general to ignore them, or mock them, but it was an acquired skill. For a while, I let them get under my skin, and the results weren't always pretty.

And in describing evolution to supposed creationists, don't you think it's more descriptive and correct to say that evolution is random mutation coupled with natural selection then to say "evolution is random"?

I suppose it would depend on what point I was trying to make at the time. There might be lots and lots of misconceptions, some of them related to randomness in evolution, or the role of natural selection. If I had one sentence with which to describe evolution, your suggested sentence is more accurate than "evolution is random". Fortunately, I always have more than one sentence, so it's never a problem that I have. (It has been a while since I tried explaining anything to a creationist. They're very rare on JREF and they are usually set upon with a viciousness that makes me want to stay away from the conversation.)

So, answer mijo so he won't claim no one answered his question.

Ok. I will.

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.

Yes. That seems accurate.

Was that so hard?

Well, there's something that made it hard for many people. Instead of answering the question that he asked, a lot of people answered the question that they thought he might be asking instead. Or they worried that he was trying something sneaky, or something, and that in agreeing with him, they might be falling for a creationist ruse. If you were terribly concerned, you could say, "Yes, that's accurate, but it isn't all that helpful in understanding evolution. The important thing to understand is that even though survival in one generation is random, it is random with a non-uniform probability. Over many generations, the probability of survival of a gene with low fitness complements is so small that we can neglect it, while the higher fitness complement will certainly dominate. In fact, those probabilities are so close to 0 and 1 respectively that it's questionable whether the word "random" is even appropriate."

His response might not have been "thank you", because he had a completely and totally, 100%, unhidden agenda. His agenda was extremely clear, and avaiable for anyone to see. He wanted to have it confirmed that he was right, and that the baseless accusations against him really were baseless. So, he might have said, to the long-winded version, "But, that does mean that evolution is random, does it not?" To which the appropriate reply would have been, "Yeah. I suppose so."

I maintain there is NO answer that will satisfy him except his twisted version of "evolution is random"--

I'll bet mine would. Even the long winded version.

 

[articulett]

Walter, I don't care about the words--I care about the understanding of evolution. When you say "evolution is random" , creationists hear the 747 analogy. Mijo knows this. That is why all is conclusions boil down to "evolution is random". Mutation is random (more or less); selection is not (more or less)--on the random scale--mutation is at the top...selection is toward the bottom. How do you communicate the filtering of the environment if you use the artifacts of the environment to conclude that selection is random? How do you differentiate that from random mutation. Even random mutation is not completely random..physics plays a role in all of it.

Use whatever words you want--random--non-random...come up with a better way to say it than "random mutation coupled with natural selection"--

When you say evolution is random to a creationist (the supposed subject mijo is trying to reach) they hear the 747 analogy. How do you differentiate?

 

[Taffer]

..."Yes, that's accurate, but it isn't all that helpful in understanding evolution. The important thing to understand is that even though survival in one generation is random, it is random with a non-uniform probability. Over many generations, the probability of survival of a gene with low fitness complements is so small that we can neglect it, while the higher fitness complement will certainly dominate. In fact, those probabilities are so close to 0 and 1 respectively that it's questionable whether the word "random" is even appropriate."

Perfect.

 

[articulett]

I think it's only me calling him a creationist. And the question he asked was "what evidence is there for evolution being non-random"...and this was supposedly so creationists wouldn't jump to false conclusions...

And we shall see if your answer finally satisfies him. It is good. I don't see him being as up front as you do--but then I have had a LOT of experience with creationists. I'd like to be wrong... really, I would. I don't think your explanation would keep the creationist from hearing the 747 analogy--

And I think Dawkin's says it better-- "random mutation coupled with natural selection"-- (the filter through which complexity is assembled through time).
Selection really IS the opposite of "random" in that sense--it's that part of the explanation that does in the 747 analogy. It's a lot easier to explain than diminishing probabilities and how lay persons "randomness" is not the same as scientific "randomness". Remember, creationists are people who hear "evolution is a theory" as "evolution isn't a fact". To me, mijo's question is like asking, "how is evolution not a theory"-- well it IS a theory, but your definition of theory needs to be clarified and your question shows a misunderstanding of the basics.

But I'm sorry I thought you might be a creationist. You didn't sound like one--but when you declared that "randomness" wasn't really a problem word, you set off my alarm bells. It IS a problem word--a wedge strategy word--a word that intelligent design enthusiasts love to play semantic games with. I know Schneibster (a fellow randomite) isn't a creationist either. But, heartless wench that I am--I still think mijo is.

 

[Schneibster]

Okay...maybe I'm wrong...so answer his question.

Simple. There are still living things despite the challenges life has been faced with since the Cambrian.

Or if you are going to say evolution IS random--how do you delineate that randomness from the 747 randomness (which is more akin to a "god" in impossibility than evolution).

Again, pretty simple; you've already done so, with the "parts that stick" analogy. And I've done so, as well, by pointing out that highly ordered results obtain from random underlying phenomena.

And this is the way I see evolution. I actually think both sides in this debate are incorrect. To call evolution either random or non-random to me ignores the most important aspect of it: the emergence of order from randomness.

To top it all off, there is a conjecture with which I concur that various genetic codes competed with one another early in the process of the evolution of life, perhaps even before we would truly call it "life," and that the one that emerged as the victorious survivor was the one most capable of novel traits that could be selected from. If this is true, then the very property of life that it is capable of evolving may have been selected for.

How do you you teach the most important aspect of evolution--the ratcheting...the selection. I"m sure your non-creationist friend won't find your explanations "straw men" the way he dismissed everyone elses--and talk origins. I don't care how you describe evolution--I want to know how you think it can be described so random doesn't become "half-hazard". I think the best way to do it is to emphasize selection--the part which is the "least random" in the equation--the filter...

I've never found telling someone they're an idiot particularly helpful. YMMV.

And other biolgists and those who teach this and want to inform creationists as mijo is trying to do agree-- so why is he insisting on concluding that every response is a strawman and "evolution IS random".

I simply don't see hir responses that way. Again, YMMV.

Look, I'm glad to be proven wrong. So if he's not a creationist, then surely his fellow randomites will give him a satisfactory answer, right? Those of us who actually teach the subject and debate creationists have failed miserably and been dismissed. Your turn.

I think I've already succeeded. And yet again, YMMV.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If you were terribly concerned, you could say, "Yes, that's accurate, but it isn't all that helpful in understanding evolution. The important thing to understand is that even though survival in one generation is random, it is random with a non-uniform probability. Over many generations, the probability of survival of a gene with low fitness complements is so small that we can neglect it, while the higher fitness complement will certainly dominate. In fact, those probabilities are so close to 0 and 1 respectively that it's questionable whether the word "random" is even appropriate."

I thank you for your explanation; it is very clear and simple. I apologize if this sounds ungracious, but I already said something like it 218 posts ago in response to Schneibster's first post in this thread but was pretty roundly ignored.

This is going to ring rather hollow, especially after Schneibster described it so beautifully and eloquently, but I never meant to deny that evolution didn't appear non-random or ordered. Having taken a year of physical chemistry during my undergraduate tenure, I understand the power of what one poster somewhere in one of the threads devoted specifically to the stochastic characteristics of evolution called the "ensemble mean". Such a property of an ensemble (i.e., a collection of independent yet interacting systems, such as gas molecules) describes the properties of the ensemble in terms of properties of its constituent systems. Thus, temperature is the mean kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas, and the pressure is the mean number of impacts of gas molecules against the container holding the gas. Similarly, the "progress" of evolution, in so far as we can speak of progress without a discernible goal, is the "ensemble mean" of many millions of generations of random mutation and probabilistic or stochastic natural selection. Thus, while evolution occurs through a series of random processes, over sum total of evolutionary time, unfavorable fitness complements are weeded out and favorable fitness complements are conserved.

I'm sorry that my posts never got around to acknowledging the overall "non-randomness" of evolution (albeit from constrained stochastic processes), and I apologize for any confusion that my posts have caused.

Again, I would like to compliment Schneibster on such a masterful reconciliation of the idea of randomness and order. Thank you for dong what I failed to do.

I hope that clarifies my position on and understanding of the stochastics and deterministcs of evolution.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

That's just not true. I said:

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.

We do agree that a random process can be nonrandom in certain aspects, right?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I thank you for your explanation; it is very clear and simple. I apologize if this sounds ungracious, but I already said something like it 218 posts ago in response to Schneibster's first post in this thread but was pretty roundly ignored.

I don't think you were ignored. In fact, we may all agree now. However, you keep insisting that describing evolution as simply "random" was accurate, while ignoring the question of whether it is helpful. This is what leads me to ask if there is something more to your intentions here.

If not, I apologize. And also if not, then why are we still having this conversation?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I hope that clarifies my position on and understanding of the stochastics and deterministcs of evolution.

Hang on, you posted that pages ago. Why are we still having this conversation? I, for one, appear to have browbeaten the issue far beyond necessity. For that I apologize.

But then why did you just say:

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" ...

~~ Paul

 

[Mojo]

When you say evolution is random to a creationist (the supposed subject mijo is trying to reach) they hear the 747 analogy. How do you differentiate?

Perhaps it needs to be emphasised more that it is an iterative process. The mutations may be random, but the mutations in each generation build on the successful mutations from the previous generation. Unsuccessful mutations are (by definition) not passed on to subsequent generations.

Say you have random variation involving an individual's legs being up to half an inch longer or shorter than the mean. If longer legs give an individual an advantage, then longer-legged individuals will be more likely to pass their traits to the next generation. The variation in leg length in the next generation may still be up to half an inch either side of the mean, but if genes for longer legs have been selected for it will be around a mean that is longer than in the previous generation.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have had a LOT of experience with creationists. ....--I still think mijo is.

Perhaps you have less experience with creationists than you think you have.

 

[Taffer]

Perhaps you have less experience with creationists than you think you have.

Meadmaker, while I may or may not agree with articulett, you should recognize that articulett as specifically stated ve could be wrong, and that it is just vis opinion. Perhaps you should be less confrontational, and more understanding that there are specific reasons which has lead articulett to believe that mijo might be a creationist. Whether these are correct or not is beside the point. If you disagree with articulett, explain why you think ve is wrong, rather then calling him a (to paraphrase) "poopie head".

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, while I may or may not agree with articulett, you should recognize that articulett as specifically stated ve could be wrong, and that it is just vis opinion. Perhaps you should be less confrontational, and more understanding that there are specific reasons which has lead articulett to believe that mijo might be a creationist. Whether these are correct or not is beside the point. If you disagree with articulett, explain why you think ve is wrong, rather then calling him a (to paraphrase) "poopie head".

Oh, all right.

Before I do that, I want to say something about the "tornado in a junkyard" arguments. It actually relates.

Other people have pointed out the logical arguments that can be used to demonstrate the flaw with the "tornado in a junkyard" arguments. Those need no elaboration. I wish to add that there is something even more important. When responding to the "tornado in a junkyard" arguments, it is extremely important to be sure that the person to whom you are responding has actually made that argument.

Likewise, when arguing with creationists at all, make sure they are really creationists. Very few of them actually conceal their belief. That would be a bit like denying Jesus, n'est-ce pas? I think an awful lot of those "concealed creationists" weren't really creationists at all.

 

[articulett]

Perhaps it needs to be emphasised more that it is an iterative process. The mutations may be random, but the mutations in each generation build on the successful mutations from the previous generation. Unsuccessful mutations are (by definition) not passed on to subsequent generations.

Say you have random variation involving an individual's legs being up to half an inch longer or shorter than the mean. If longer legs give an individual an advantage, then longer-legged individuals will be more likely to pass their traits to the next generation. The variation in leg length in the next generation may still be up to half an inch either side of the mean, but if genes for longer legs have been selected for it will be around a mean that is longer than in the previous generation.

Yes...that's the thing...it has been iterated again and again--by fine examples...just like yours...and still mijo responds that nobody answered his question (How is evolution non-random?) It's non random because what we see are the survivors of trillions upon trillions of experimentss filtered through time and environment that acts on the "experiment winners" and drives evolution "forward" (increases complexity...hones design).

To dismiss every answer as not answering his question...including the talk origins answer...suggests that he wanted the answer to be "evolution is random". We all agree that evolution has random components--but calling it "random" or "non-random" is not helpful in understanding it--nor differentiating the actual process from "half-hazard" or the 747 analogy. Therefore, there was no way to answer the question...to him it all boils down to, "oh, so you are saying that evolution IS random." There are random components involved in evolution--but the understanding that is lacking (in the supposed creationists that mijo is trying to educate) is the concept that he, himself, can't seem to grasp--it's not the "random" part--it's SELECTION...the ratcheting...the building upon that which "sticks around".

And evolution is a very important concept--not just for understanding life...but because all systems evolve (or die out.) It's a way of understanding all kinds of complexity...how we got to where we are with language, ideas, technology, our cities, the grand canyon, the galaxy...how a fetus grows, a tree from an acorn--

Focusing on the word "random" is, sadly, a well known creationist ploy. That word is abused as readily as "theory"... and "discontinuous fossil record". If talk-origins, Paul A., and Dawkins mentions that these are common "wedge strategy words"-- then I think any one trying to give a helpful explanation ought to be aware of what the other side is hearing...what they WANT to hear.

 

[articulett]

Perhaps you have less experience with creationists than you think you have.

And perhaps you are wrong.

 

[articulett]

And perhaps you are wrong.

I think Mijo would be hard pressed to explain why random is not helpful and how your information could keep the supposed creationists he's trying to educate from jumping to the "half-hazard", 747 conclusion.

Though he praised your answer (Inadvertently attributing it to Schneibster,) he had been given as good or better answers by many, only this time he would look like a "creationist" for sure if he didn't agree. Really, this is identical to his "discontinuous fossil" thread from my opinion...where people claimed he was not a creationist and got ◊◊◊◊ upon for their efforts on his behalf.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Inadvertently attributing it to Schneibster

As someone who, much to the chagrin of most people here, wants to continue on in academics and become a member of the academic community, I take the whole issue of attribution very seriously. I want to clarify that I didn't misattribute what Meadmaker wrote to Schneibster; I said that the post of mine that I quoted in response to Meadmaker's post was in response to a post that Schneibster had written on how microscopically stochastic systems can exhibit macroscopically deterministic behavior. I realize that the way inn which my response to Meadmaker was written was confusing and how that could've caused people to think that I was misattributing Meadmaker's words to Schneibster; therefore, the above was my attempt at clarification.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Likewise, when arguing with creationists at all, make sure they are really creationists. Very few of them actually conceal their belief. That would be a bit like denying Jesus, n'est-ce pas? I think an awful lot of those "concealed creationists" weren't really creationists at all.

You do realize that we use "creationist" in a broad sense, to refer to people who have any sort of view that a master creative, possibly supernaural, entity interacts with the natural world? I'm willing to admit that that may be too broad a brush. But when I refer to a Christian fundmental Creationist, I'll capitalize the word.

Now, what do you think I mean by random creationist?

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

You do realize that we use "creationist" in a broad sense, to refer to people who have any sort of view that a master creative, possibly supernaural, entity interacts with the natural world?

I think that's too broad of a brush. It would put every Christian, Muslim, and religious Jew in the "creationist" category.

You're calling Ken Miller a creationist. (Either that or a liar, since he says he's Catholic.)

 

[articulett]

As someone who, much to the chagrin of most people here, wants to continue on in academics and become a member of the academic community, I take the whole issue of attribution very seriously. I want to clarify that I didn't misattribute what Meadmaker wrote to Schneibster; I said that the post of mine that I quoted in response to Meadmaker's post was in response to a post that Schneibster had written on how microscopically stochastic systems can exhibit macroscopically deterministic behavior. I realize that the way inn which my response to Meadmaker was written was confusing and how that could've caused people to think that I was misattributing Meadmaker's words to Schneibster; therefore, the above was my attempt at clarification.

I was just returning the favor--you accused me of speaking to you when I was quite clearly talking to whitey...

Now what about post #351 of yours..

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"?

After pages and pages that was what you boiled down the answers to your poor question to. Do you understand yet why your question was bad? Or can you concisely tell us why the word random is to vague to actually explain evolution to anyone--

It's to nobody's chagrin whether you continue on in academics, but if you actually hope to teach people anything it helps to communicate in a way that facilitates understanding. So let's hear how you are going to tell all your creationist friends the answer to your question in the opening post (what is the evidence that evolution is non-random?) so that they don't come to the tornado through the junkyard conclusion. I'm sure that with Meadmaker and Schneibster's fabulous writings and moral support you'll do a stellar example and quit obfuscating and playing word games.

Ready, set, go...