What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

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.)

Paul does this because creationist always say they aren't creationist...or they dance around the term or answer the direct question obliquly--for example, Behe calls himself a proponent of intelligent design--which he says is not "creationism". Intelligent Design proponents call the young earth creationists, "creationists". Really, you ought to get more familiar with their word games. The Behe transcript is fantastic. You have let flattery and an unfamiliarity with Christian circle talk to fool you,

They concede tiny things when they have to--but the conversation is always more about confusions and who is right and who is wrong--then it is about clarifying the facts. That, my dear, is the essence of the wedge strategy-- It's the strategy of a defense attorney with a guilty client.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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

Hmm. So I wonder what makes someone a creationist? Wiki says:

"Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their entirety by a supernatural deity or deities (typically God), whose existence is presupposed."

So a Creationist (capital C) thinks that the universe was created in its entirey, in one fell swoop. Does that mean it was created as it is now? Well, certainly a "Biblical Creationist" thinks so. This leaves creationist (small c) to mean something broader. But perhaps it is too broad to be useful.

Anyhoo, I avoid calling someone a [Cc]reationist until the evidence is clear. That doesn't mean I'm not suspicious sometimes, though.

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

Yes, Catholics, Muslims, etc. are creationists to me. If you believe in pre-planned or top down design, you probably don't really understand evolution.

Well, I suppose that can't be completely true...since Francis Collins understands evolution and is an evangelical Christian (??) but I can't fathom how he reconciles the two (original sin??), but his "intelligent designer" lies outside the realm of science and can't be detected by science--he pokes his finger in to influence physics and the like on occasion.

But Collins bugaboo as to why there must be a god is the "goldilocks universe" thingy and "morality". Both easy to refute...unless a misleading question is asked and no answer can suffice. Creationists have a vested interest in maintaining ignorance in a particular area. I suppose all faith based adherents do. Their self-deception depends upon it.

 

[articulett]

This is from talkorigins most misconceptions about evolution if any of you doubt that the original question was designed not to be answered--but to shore up this misconception: "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

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

Now, let's recall that mijo has been given this link and told many things just like it on numerous occasions, but he dismissed them all--he characterized them as "straw men" and concluded that evolution is, indeed, random (and presumably this is the claim he's trying to address for creationists so that is their version of "random" we are talking about.)

post #351 after all this:

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"?

And here is the tornado in the junkyard description that he dismissed which also answered his question rather well... http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html

We turn now to the tornado in the junkyard. This analogy says nothing about the validity of evolution, or for that matter abiogenesis, because it fails to represent them in four crucial ways.

1. It operates purely according to random chance.
2. It is an example of single-step, rather than cumulative, selection.
3. It is a saltationary jump - an end product entirely unlike the beginning product.
4. It has a target specified ahead of time.

The first point is the most important. The tornado in the junkyard is an example of an intricate, complex and highly organized form being produced by nothing more than random chance. But evolution is not chance. (See this article for more on this.) Rather, it operates according to a fixed law - the law of natural selection - which favors some assemblages over others; it preferentially selects for those adaptations which improve fitness and selects against those that do not.

Along with all the writers on this thread and the other one he felt was beneath him.

I'm the one calling him a creationist and I think the evidence has only grown more compelling. He seems to understand less and less as we explain more and more. His question is on par with "how can fire melt steel?". Some questions scream motive. And this isn't the first post where mijo has posted a loaded question and claimed nobody answered it for him while insulting a great number of intelligent people trying to gently show him why his question wasn't good and what the information was that he seemingly wanted. Also, in the last question, he propose that he wanted to clear up a creationist argument--so you would think talkorigins wouldn't be dismissed as a straw man--and you'd think that some of the very smart people on this forum who know this subject very well and provided links and examples might have educated him at least slightly if he was really curious about having his question answered...

but just like in the last post, he claimed nobody answered him because, well, basically because the creationist claim is correct....then he does a couple of side stepping and mild agreement without saying anything that shows he understands anything-- to me, this is Behe redux. I thought it was obvious. But, I have defended many a creationist by accident myself...(with my tail between my legs, I must admit that I once thought kleinman was on the up and up and really interested in how info. gets added to the genome.)

Woos can be very smart, nice, and eloquent (though I don't find mijo the latter)--but they have a blind spot when it comes to their pet delusion. And I am standing by my claim. Mijo thinks that scientists are saying this all happened by random chance--and to him that means the tornado. Mijo does NOT understand why it is a loaded question nor does he understand selection nor does he understand how the "randomness" involved in selection doesn't make selection itself or evolution random. He does not understand assembly through time (though Francis Collins could probably tell him...)--he needs to believe that there was a plan behind it all--I don't care what you call it--I just recognize it when I see it, and as much as I want to be wrong, I know I'm right. Mijo finally admitted that his discontinuous fossil record question was misleading--but he never absorbed the detailed information that anyone who was really interested in the fossil record and the fascinating details we've been uncovering about evolution would be interested in. He dismissed him as readily as he dismissed every answer here and showed an amazing lack of curiosity for one who is supposedly interested in science.

And he got hung up on the word "discontinuity" there without ever clarifying. Here's it's "random"--he wants to substitute stochastic or probability--instead of finding out about the way evolution is not random...he just wants to believe that it is. And when a scientist says we are here "by chance" it implies a trillion twists and turns accumulated through time--but that is not what a creationist hears. That is not what mijo is hearing. All he is hearing you say is "Evolution is random". He's not hearing you say that that is a completely misleading and wrong way to describe evolution. He doesn't understand NATURAL SELECTION. He wants to label it random in the same way mutations are random so he can say "evolution is random"...which doesn't convey any information nor does it address the supposed creationists in the opening posts. Natural selection IS the opposite of random in this sense. Dawkins is much more correct. The internet analogy that mijo rejects as a strawman IS correct. Random components do not mean that the process is random. That is the bottom line. There are probably no peer-reviewed papers that say "evolution is non-random" as he says. It's a statement that doesn't mean anything. There are random and non random elements of mutation and selection--but mutation is a "random process" while selection is not. It selects from the "random processes" results and compounds them through time.

Meadmaker, you said it well--but so did a lot of other people...and he still won't be able to sum it up. His question still isn't answered. And he'll still come to the misleading uninformative conclusion that "evolution is random" (just as "the fossil record is discontinuous".) Random and discontinuous are words of abuse just like theory when it comes to deceiving oneself for one's intelligent designer. He doesn't want to educate creationists as he claims--he wants to shore up his own beliefs on the topic.

He has an amazing lack of curiosity for someone claiming to be interested in evolution.

 

[articulett]

by the way, mijo, it's "deep seated" not "deep seeded"--(though I like the later considering the topic...)--'just thought you'd like to know since, much to my supposed chagrin, you want to continue on in academics and be taken seriously and all...

 

[articulett]

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".

I'm a her. And I prefer the term "bitch" to poopie head.


And I do, quite adamantly think mijo is a creationist and hasn't absorbed an iota of what was said. And I'm using the loose definition of creationist (proponent of "intelligent (top down) design" of some sort.) I think his conclusion is, "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random", therefore it is random". And what that means to him is exactly what it means to the people he's supposedly trying to clarify the issue for. The issue has not been clarified for him--see the re-pastings coupled with the original...

Meadmaker and Schneibster may well understand the parts of evolution that make it not-random or not a random process or misleading to describe it that way. Mijo does not. Mijos "random" boils down to, "all this order came about by chance (or probability or randomness or stochastic processes)." This is the sticking point of many a creationist. The only way out is by understanding selection and how it produces order from randomness.
Remember, no one sees the gazillion failures. Mijo has not acknowledged them nor has he grasped the weight of selective factors. He does not know why saying his question is misleading or why saying "evolution IS random" is uninformative and misleading.

We will never know the billions of potential siblings you could have had or that could have existed instead of you--you are the single experiment--winnowed out through eons of competition and then even a competition for which of millions would fertilize the egg-- The elimination rounds are severe, but the less fit slip through with the more fit--though the least fit never do. But the more fit have a better chance of making it through the next elimination round. All life forms are connected and it isn't random--it's eons of elimination rounds to see who gets the chance to go on again...which genes worked to make more gene vectors hospitable for those genes. It's an important concept. To me it's awe-inspiring. I am angry that religions have obfuscated the learning of this knowledge for such paltry offerings, explanations, ignorance, and arrogance in return.

I don't think mijo will give us a decent answer to the question he asked that will supposedly clear up his creationist friends misunderstandings that lead to the "tornado analogy". If I'm wrong, I will apologize, but if I'm right, than I think maybe those who think I'm picking on the guy ought to apologize to me. I don't think he will answer his own question, because I don't think any of our answers did it for him. I swear, this is exactly how Behe reacted after he was shown example after example of irreducible complexity--and look at kleinman and Paul's endless time spent on his evo program...and no one every could sum up Hewitt's cell ocillation theory or figure out why he insisted on calling the cell the true replicator (an obfuscation to be sure). And has Thai or Hammegk moved one inch forward in thought in their bazillion posts? I think even Iamme has "evolved" in thinking more than they have. Creationists sometimes use the right words or avoid the wrong ones, but they never really say anything. Try to sum up what he asked and how it was answered and the conclusion that Mijo got from all this.

Don't let his temporary flattery of explanations you may have given confuse you. He's not stupid, and he's not kleinman. But he is a creationist. He thinks that we are conceding that "evolution IS random" and that means that we assume everything got here by chance (ala tornado). He does not understand selection as a filter nor how random aspects involved in selection do not a random process make.

I'm trying to be aware of my confirmation bias, but meadmaker, I think you may be unaware of yours. Yes, I've been nastier to him than he deserves, but he's screwed around a lot of smart people that I consider friends and he's done it before. When you concede that "evolution is random" (a very misleading phrase) you prop up what he wants to hear--and it sure isn't your version of random.

 

[jimbob]

Reiterating what I think Dr Adequate said.

Roulette is random, but I'd rather have the house odds than a punter's.

Don't play cards with a keen bridge player, unless you enjoy loosing. (I did with my Gran).

 

[mijopaalmc]

Meadmaker and Schneibster may well understand the parts of evolution that make it not-random or not a random process or misleading to describe it that way. Mijo does not. Mijos "random" boils down to, "all this order came about by chance (or probability or randomness or stochastic processes)." This is the sticking point of many a creationist. The only way out is by understanding selection and how it produces order from randomness.
Remember, no one sees the gazillion failures. Mijo has not acknowledged them nor has he grasped the weight of selective factors. He does not know why saying his question is misleading or why saying "evolution IS random" is uninformative and misleading.

You know, articulett, that is an explicit mischaracterization of my argument. While it is true that creationists may draw those conclusions by saying that evolution is random, I do not, a fact that I have made amply clear in all of my posts. Simply saying something that resembles a creationist argument doesn't make me a creationist.

The problem here is with the multiple uses of "random", which are all correct in some way, but when applied across the board become incorrect. Probably the most common is the usage in the phrase "random sample". Random sampling is based of the idea that every individual in the population should have an equal chance of being selected to be in the sample and therefore the probability distribution for the attribute of "being sampled" is uniformly distributed. The data collected from a random sample (i.e., the "random variables", such as height, weight, income, age, etc.) , however, are most often not uniformly distributed, but are nonetheless referred to as "random" in standard statistical parlance. Both of of the preceding usages of "random" have the fact that whatever is being described is based in probability. The third usage is the way I use "random" to describe evolution. Needles to say, using "random" in such a way says nothing about whether I believe that order can arise from disorder or not.

This is why I am baffled as to why people, particularly you, make the assumption that I am a creationist, especially since I have made it painfully clear that I understand that order can arise from disorder and that such a situation does not violate any fundamental laws of nature.

 

[articulett]

This is why I am baffled as to why people, particularly you, make the assumption that I am a creationist, especially since I have made it painfully clear that I understand that order can arise from disorder and that such a situation does not violate any fundamental laws of nature.

Excellent, so now you will tell us the answer to your original question to satisfy the curious creationists you speak of, right? I'm sure I'll see the error of my ways.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Excellent, so now you will tell us the answer to your original question to satisfy your the curious creationists you speak of, right?

This is also an assumption. It might have been the way that I began my OP in Fossil and Evolution began, but in this case, I myself am unconvinced that evolution is non-random. I asserted this in the the thread I cite in my OP in this thread and all I got were contradictions of what I was saying and no explanations why. Furthermore, the reasons cited in this thread and the one I cited in my OP do not preclude evolution from being "random" in the sense that it is a system in which every process in based on probability. As has been previously described, being constrained and non-uniformly distributed does not preclude evolution from being "random". Thus, just because there are limits to what can happen during a round of mutation and just because natural selection doesn't confer the same probability of survival to each individual doesn't mean that evolution isn't "random".

For instance, the macroscopic properties of gas (e.g., temperature and pressure) are described by the microscopic properties of the particles in the gas (e.g., their kinetic energy and the number of impacts against the container, respectively), which in turn determined by non-uniform probability distributions. Similarly, the evolution of the a population is described by the action of mutation and natural selection on individuals, which are themselves determined by the non-uniform probabilities of mutation and survival. These are the reasons that I think evolution is "random", not because I think that its being "random" makes it impossible.

 

[articulett]

Oh, and clear this up from the first page... how exactly has your knowledge progressed since this post--we know that you find at least one answer somewhat helpful... in what way?--other than it confirms that "evolution IS random"...(whatever that means).

I know you guys hate when I do this but:

1. inundating me with vast amounts of data only a small portion of which is relevant to the question I asked, does not answer my question; providing a link to a specific page would be much more helpful and would show good faith
   
2. organisms adapting to their environment in no way proves that evolution is non-random; the mean fitness of a population increasing over time only tells us that the frequency of less fit individuals is increasing and that can occur randomly.

I will consider the information that you provide, but it will take me a while to assimilate it all so I will not be quick in responding, a fact that seemed to get me in trouble (not necessarily with anyone who has posted thus far) the lat time we interacted.

You've now had lots of time to assimilate and draw your conclusions. It was rude to claim no-one answered your loaded question. Your question was the problem and your request for peer reviewed articles showing that evolution is not random was as well--not the answers, btw.

Oh, and while you're at it, be sure to tell us how order arises from seeming randomnes--you claimed you understood that part...are you still insisting on calling this selection process "random"--via which of your many definitions?

Oh what did you finally discern about the "discontinuity" in the fossil record--, you know, so you can answer creationist claims?

No need to be defensive. No need to blame others. Just answer the questions. What have you come to learn from your questions and many peoples' expenditure of time? What information will help you with supposed creationist arguments? If you've found an answer, many of us would like to know it--we deal with creationists all the time...

 

[articulett]

This is also an assumption. It might have been the way that I began my OP in Fossil and Evolution began, but in this case, I myself am unconvinced that evolution is non-random. I asserted this in the the thread I cite in my OP in this thread and all I got were contradictions of what I was saying and no explanations why. Furthermore, the reasons cited in this thread and the one I cited in my OP do not preclude evolution from being "random" in the sense that it is a system in which every process in based on probability. As has been previously described, being constrained and non-uniformly distributed does not preclude evolution from being "random". Thus, just because there are limits to what can happen during a round of mutation and just because natural selection doesn't confer the same probability of survival to each individual doesn't mean that evolution isn't "random".

For instance, the macroscopic properties of gas (e.g., temperature and pressure) are described by the microscopic properties of the particles in the gas (e.g., their kinetic energy and the number of impacts against the container, respectively), which in turn determined by non-uniform probability distributions. Similarly, the evolution of the a population is described by the action of mutation and natural selection on individuals, which are themselves determined by the non-uniform probabilities of mutation and survival. These are the reasons that I think evolution is "random", not because I think that its being "random" makes it impossible.

Ah yes...and that is what you've learned that will clear up the creationist strawman that this is too complex to happen via random chance? I don't think so. I don't think you are clear on how your understanding differs from the creationist claim.

It's not about whether evolution is random or non-random though you dance around this. It's about how it's understood so that it's not complexity by "chance"--the tornado analogy. Do you understand how selection can be seen as the opposite of random and this is probably a better part to clarify when talking about evolution? Why are you so adverse to "random mutation coupled with natural selection"--and then making sure that YOU and these supposed creationists understand the non-random aspects of selection?

Really.

If your goal is as you claim, you should be thanking the people on this forum for working so hard on your behalf...not worrying about the word "random" or who thinks you are a creationist.

 

[mijopaalmc]

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

I was stating that I did not intend to misattribute what Meadmaker wrote to Schneibster for the benefit of all involved. I feel that it is necessary for me to offer clarification especially when someone calls me on it.

However, I also think that it is important to point out that the post that I responded when I accused you of misattributing something whiteyonthemoon said to me to said this:

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?

 

[articulett]

I was stating that I did not intend to misattribute what Meadmaker wrote to Schneibster for the benefit of all involved. I feel that it is necessary for me to offer clarification especially when someone calls me on it.

However, I also think that it is important to point out that the post that I responded when I accused you of misattributing something whiteyonthemoon said to me to said this:

Oh, I'm flattered; you DO read what I write. Actually, that last paragraph was a hodge podge of creationists terms--evolutionarian comes from kleinman--I tossed them all in together... I think this was because you inferred a forum conspiracy where everyone shouts down your arguments and then whitey joined in with concurrence. Evolution isn't an argument nor a debate--it's a fact...the only thing to be done with facts is to understand them. If you want to understand the facts about evolution this is a great forum. If you assume you already know them and they sound like creationist straw men, you can expect to be treated as a creationist. If I sound like a woo on this forum or amongst my scientific peers, I have no doubts I will be strongly chastised. I've been verbally flogged for assuming people were creationists before--but so far, I have not been proven wrong. That's the strength of science--our understanding evolves through this elimination process--not randomly--through testing, not deference.

All those with woo claims speak of this alleged conspiracy where scientists block out their fabulous ideas, counter theories, and arguments, but they never ever actually present any useful info. And (like you) and it's always under a sort of deceptive guise of curiosity.

It always boils down to something vague like "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random"-- plus a few aspersions cast upon others (or the forum conspiracy--or scientists in general.) What you say conveys very little meaning... nor does it further understanding, nor does it clear up creationist straw men. And these are supposed to be your goals, right?

"I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random"-- that's what you got from all this. And I'm supposed to gather you are not a creationist? How many questions and requests for clarification have you ignored? How many explanations have you dismissed as irrelevant or straw men or "not helpful" or part of that ignorant other thread? Don't you ever conclude that maybe--just maybe it's you? Not a forum conspiracy or ignoramuses on another thread?

Face it. You wanted this answer: "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random". And you got it. You always will. You don't understand anything about natural selection or why it is the opposite of random just like you never understood why the fossil record is exactly what we'd expect if evolution is a fact. Kleinman will never understand why his paltry math model is not reflective of the facts of evolution we know--Hewitt will never let go of the cell as the unit of replication...Behe will always claim some things are "irreducibly complex" and you will always claim: "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random". (and whitey will probably not clear up his DNA chauvinism remark.)

To a creationist--which I'm sure you are--that sounds exactly like the "straw man" you are supposedly trying to clear up.

Woo always insult freely without knowing it and get offended when returned--you have repeatedly alleged that the people on this thread and the other thread are too ignorant to answer your question satisfactorily while not admitting that your question shows vast ignorance on your part. Moreover, why would you point to what I said,-- it's not part of understanding randomness and clearing up creationist nonsense...why not just answer your own question...instead of evading it with "straw men". Who cares who I think is a creationist or whether I mix up forum members or lump them together?

So--now that we've cleared that up...let's get back on topic
How would you use the knowledge you gained on this thread to dismantle the creationist argument that this is all too complex to come about by chance. Or at least tell us why everyone's example including talkorigins was the wrong answer. And why the probability aspect (the easy part of evolution) is so much more important to you than the less intuitive part--selection?

If none of us can answer your loaded question to your satisfaction do you really expect us to believe that you will be able to convey any information to a creationist? If your goal is to really understand evolution, why do you seem so un-curious except when it comes to info. that you can fit in with your claim "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random" or "the fossil record is discontinuous". If your goal is to undo creationist arguments why are you asking more pedantic versions of the same loaded questions they ask and then feigning hurt feelings when called on it?

 

[articulett]

How would you answer this question?

Can you give me some evidence as to how mate selection is not random, because a lot of people just seem to meet their mates through random encounters at a bar or something...I'm trying to clear up the notion that "mate selection just happens by chance", and I'm not unconvinced that it's non-random. Peer reviewed papers are preferred or an easy to understand very exact link on the topic of "non-random" mate selection.

That's EXACTLY how you come across to me. There is no right answer to the above question because the question itself contains ignorance that needs to be cleared up. How do you perceive your question as being different. How does any of your supporters?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Oh, I'm flattered; you DO read what I write. Actually, that last paragraph was a hodge podge of creationists terms--evolutionarian comes from kleinman--I tossed them all in together... I think this was because you inferred a forum conspiracy where everyone shouts down your arguments and then whitey joined in with concurrence. Evolution isn't an argument nor a debate--it's a fact...the only thing to be done with facts is to understand them. If you want to understand the facts about evolution this is a great forum. If you assume you already know them and they sound like creationist straw men, you can expect to be treated as a creationist. If I sound like a woo on this forum or amongst my scientific peers, I have no doubts I will be strongly chastised. I've been verbally flogged for assuming people were creationists before--but so far, I have not been proven wrong. That's the strength of science--our understanding evolves through this elimination process--not randomly--through testing, not deference.

All those with woo claims speak of this alleged conspiracy where scientists block out their fabulous ideas, counter theories, and arguments, but they never ever actually present any useful info. And (like you) and it's always under a sort of deceptive guise of curiosity.

It always boils down to something vague like "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random"-- plus a few aspersions cast upon others (or the forum conspiracy--or scientists in general.) What you say conveys very little meaning... nor does it further understanding, nor does it clear up creationist straw men. And these are supposed to be your goals, right?

"I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random"-- that's what you got from all this. And I'm supposed to gather you are not a creationist? How many questions and requests for clarification have you ignored? How many explanations have you dismissed as irrelevant or straw men or "not helpful" or part of that ignorant other thread? Don't you ever conclude that maybe--just maybe it's you? Not a forum conspiracy or ignoramuses on another thread?

Face it. You wanted this answer: "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random". And you got it. You always will. You don't understand anything about natural selection or why it is the opposite of random just like you never understood why the fossil record is exactly what we'd expect if evolution is a fact. Kleinman will never understand why his paltry math model is not reflective of the facts of evolution we know--Hewitt will never let go of the cell as the unit of replication...Behe will always claim some things are "irreducibly complex" and you will always claim: "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random". (and whitey will probably not clear up his DNA chauvinism remark.)

To a creationist--which I'm sure you are--that sounds exactly like the "straw man" you are supposedly trying to clear up.

Woo always insult freely without knowing it and get offended when returned--you have repeatedly alleged that the people on this thread and the other thread are too ignorant to answer your question satisfactorily while not admitting that your question shows vast ignorance on your part. Moreover, why would you point to what I said,-- it's not part of understanding randomness and clearing up creationist nonsense...why not just answer your own question...instead of evading it with "straw men". Who cares who I think is a creationist or whether I mix up forum members or lump them together?

So--now that we've cleared that up...let's get back on topic
How would you use the knowledge you gained on this thread to dismantle the creationist argument that this is all too complex to come about by chance. Or at least tell us why everyone's example including talkorigins was the wrong answer. And why the probability aspect (the easy part of evolution) is so much more important to you than the less intuitive part--selection?

If none of us can answer your loaded question to your satisfaction do you really expect us to believe that you will be able to convey any information to a creationist? If your goal is to really understand evolution, why do you seem so un-curious except when it comes to info. that you can fit in with your claim "I'm not unconvinced that evolution is non-random" or "the fossil record is discontinuous". If your goal is to undo creationist arguments why are you asking more pedantic versions of the same loaded questions they ask and then feigning hurt feelings when called on it?

So how does natural selection act if not a probabilities of survival?

How is saying that while evolution is "random" over short durations on individuals, it appears deterministic over long duration and on populations (just as it is impossible to predict what the velocity of a specific gas molecule, but the temperature describe the average speed of all particles in the gas) in any way agreeing with creationist?

How does ignoring definitions of words help the non-randomite case at all?

 

[Meadmaker]

How would you answer this question?

Can you give me some evidence as to how mate selection is not random, because a lot of people just seem to meet their mates through random encounters at a bar or something...I'm trying to clear up the notion that "mate selection just happens by chance", and I'm not unconvinced that it's non-random. Peer reviewed papers are preferred or an easy to understand very exact link on the topic of "non-random" mate selection.

That's EXACTLY how you come across to me. There is no right answer to the above question because the question itself contains ignorance that needs to be cleared up. How do you perceive your question as being different. How does any of your supporters?

Speaking as one of the "supporters" I know how I would answer it.

Mate selection is random. It just happens by chance. My wife doesn't agree, but we manage to get along most of the time anyway.

 

[Dancing David]

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:

As to people calling you a creationist, I don't recall doing that meself.

I do recall asking you to clarify some things in this thread.

I shall reread the OP of this thread, I must have missed the information you are referencing in it. Dorry, I am usualy involved in multiple thread, I haven't read the ones on the God Delusion.

:eyepoppi: aside I give you a hearty and a followed by a

 

[Dancing David]

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.

I think you must have ignored taffer's posts, and a few others.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think you must have ignored taffer's posts, and a few others.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument can be summarized as "evolution isn't random because natural selection weeds out unfavorable phenotypes and thereby fine-tunes organisms". I do not object to this characterization of evolution through natural selection. I do, however, think that designating this process "non-random" is inaccurate because natural selection does not eliminate every individual with a specific phenotype in one generation; it only makes it less like that that phenotype will show up in the next generation. However, over a large number of generations, the frequency of unfavorable phenotype does approach zero, and possibly reaches it, through successive steps of the probabilistic culling of natural selection.

I hope that this demonstrates that I understand how evolution through natural selection works and that I am not attacking evolution when I say that natural selection is random because it is based on probabilities. I just think that calling evolution "non-random" obfuscates this probabilistic nature.