What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

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.

I don't care what you call it--random or non random or something else--why not the preferred "random mutation modified by natural selection?" But whatever it is you want to call it--how do you answer the creationists argument that you referred to in your first post?

How do you keep "I remain unconvinced that evolution is non-random" from becoming the equivalent of the tornado in a junk yard analogy? I want to know why you think having random elements involved in a process (with varying degrees of randomness) justifies calling the whole process random--especially when it leads to one of the most common misunderstandings--the one you are supposedly trying to clear up?? It sounds to me like you are saying, "well, evolution IS random, so the creationist conundrum is a real conundrum that science doesn't explain... just like I think you summed up the other thread with "well, the fossil record IS discontinuous and the scientists can't explain it..." It's dishonest. And your question was designed to lead to those exact answers because they were bad questions--designed to obfuscate, not clarify.

Why are you hung up on randomness and non-randomness rather than on clarifying the supposed error in creationist thinking? Or do you admit that was just a ruse? It's not the "random" that is the problem--IT'S SELECTION you all seem shaky on. You are hearing this from someone who teaches it. Talk Origins is an expert site on it, and you dismissed it with a wave and an assertion that it's a strawman and that your question wasn't answered. You are either purposefully or ignorantly focusing on an ambiguous term...and when told this you try to change it to equally ambiguous terms like chance or stochastic or probabilistic.

It's not randomness or non-randomness that is the issue--it's SELECTION--how it works, what it is, how it culls... You give yourself away with your instance on focusing on "probabilities" without ever pinning down what definition you are referring to--or why--or the difference between randomness in regards to mutation and random influences on selective processes.

(Meadmaker--a case could be made for picking mates at random--but it misses a few of the nuances don't you think?...at least some of the sexual selection factors...it sounds like cupid is flinging random arrows with no other guiding factors... It's not the same kind of random as, say, a lottery--you have preferences and geographical issues and the like--)

And no, you haven't demonstrated what I asked you to demonstrate. How does your question and the answers you've uncovered help you answer the creationist claim? How do those you praised have more helpful answers than those you dismissed other than it made it easier to come to your meaningless conclusion of "I remain unconvinced that evolution is non-random"?

And I don't care if you attack evolution. I'm not chagrined about your academic aspirations. I just want to hear you answer the question you asked in a way that disabuses the hypothetical creationists of their mistaken notion regarding evolution. See, I don't think you can, because you are your "hypoothetical creationists".

 

[articulett]

Come on--tell us how your newly achieved understanding differs from the creationists you spoke of in post 1--

We already know that nobody in the other thread answered your question and only 1 or 2 did here--so let's have it!

 

[Meadmaker]

(Meadmaker--a case could be made for picking mates at random--but it misses a few of the nuances don't you think?...at least some of the sexual selection factors...it sounds like cupid is flinging random arrows with no other guiding factors... It's not the same kind of random as, say, a lottery--you have preferences and geographical issues and the like--)

It misses some nuances. It addresses some nuances. It corrects some errors, such as the idea that finding a particular mate was "destiny", or that this mate is "the one". Depending on circumstances, it could be a better or worse description than "non-random".

I want to know why you think having random elements involved in a process (with varying degrees of randomness) justifies calling the whole process random--especially when it leads to one of the most common misunderstandings

(emphasis added)

This is something that has barely been challenged in this thread, but I wish to do so explicitly here. I've alluded to this earlier, but I want to throw down the gauntlet and challenge anyone to support this statement. It is asserted that creationists misuse "random" or that saying evolution proceeds "by chance" somehow is a pillar in their arguments.

I don't think it is. I know talkorigins has an article on it, but last I checked, that site wasn't run by creationists.

If this error is truly common, it ought to be easy to find creationists arguments where this error is made. I think if you link to actual, real, creationists arguments, you would rarely find that it mattered all that much how this argument, about "chance" was settled.

I think you, and lots of others including Dawkins, are misunderstanding the importance of randomness in creationist arguments.

ETA: I want to say, unequivocally, that I am NOT saying that creationist arguments make sense. I am saying that I don't think you understand where the error lies.

 

[articulett]

Oh random is big--here are some links (as if being in talkorigins top five wasn't enough.). It's mentioned in the wedge document and the essence of all real arguments--and yes, it's for the reasons you state--in equates with insignificance--but using that word to a creationist is a license for hearing the tornado argument. It always defaults to that. Mijo won't tell us the difference between his understanding of evolution and that--or between his understanding and the supposed creationists he's trying to explain evolutions non-random elements too. You think his random is your random--but it isn't. Just as in the mate selection scenario--it leaves a lot to be desired and doesn't really do away with false conclusions. Random components do not a random process make. Repeat.

Just do search for word random to see abuse by fundies or purposeful misinterpretation of this word to convey a false understanding:
http://www.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_posts.php?thread_id=76549&forum_id=1&start=120
http://www.fstdt.com/fundies.asp
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-55295.html
a typical one:

It just seems like a stretch to say that everything came from single-celled organisms in random combinations. If that was the case, why is it that, according to science, all fish came first, then all amphibians, then all reptiles, etc.? If it was random, why couldn't amphibians have come at the same time as fish?"

- Jiggy37, RaptureReady (http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?postid=984447#post984447)

"I just finished watching another tape from
http://www.drdino.com [Kent Hovind's website]
It's not copyrighted so see if you can get the series on creation vs evolution. With three degrees I thought I was educated. I was duped. We have been lied too - the extent of the deception is incredible."
- snowbird, RaptureReady (http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?postid=985562#post985562

Ooh and check out Deeprak Chopra's claims at pharyngula: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/moonbat_anti_evolutionist_deepak_chopra/

And check out this nasty fundy at Panda's thumb:

To be an accepted member of the church of materialism requires that one chant pro-Darwinian phrases and nothing else. God (or whoever) forbid that we only go as far as the evidence actually leads. We *MUST* choose *NOW* to worship random chance. What’s so bad about having an open mind?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/04/william_dembksi.html

a cardinal: http://www2.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/07/victim_of_the_wedge.html

How bout this one:

Specified complexity is not a biblical concept.

If you are playing poker and lose to someone who gets dealt 15 royal flushes in a row and are willing to say to yourself he was just real lucky and there was no cheating involved then you are, quite simply, a fool.

If you start tallying up the (im)probabilities of life as we know it coming about through chance it makes that run of royal flushes look positively commonplace.

My mama didn’t raise any fools. When presented with the overwhelming appearance of design the most rational assumption to make, until proven otherwise, is that it is a design. When confronted with the overwhelming improbability of something happening by random chance the most rational assumption to make, until proven otherwise, is it did not happen by random chance.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/tucson_weekly_s.html

From the wedge document:

This Darwinian tradition of random evolution often ignores the scientific data that indicates that our universe could not have progressed by random chance.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/05/some_facts_abou.html

a response: "Anyone who refers to natural selection as a “random chance process” has no business criticizing evolution."

The wedge leaked: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/crsc_wedge.html

And let's not forget "answersingenesis" the fundie think tank trying to make the bible look scientifically accurate while making scientists look like they don't know what they are talking about. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/materialist.asp

(and anyhow--all the arguments boil down to complexity from randomness--that's what IC is--kleinman's argument--and the goldilocks universe even--it has a backwards way of seeing things...instead of thinking I evolved to fit in this world--the world evolved to bring forth me is the thinking--calling it random doesn't clue anyone into how complexity arises from randomness...though, as you've said, I'm not sure anything convinces them...the ego is a fragile thing...)

If all these sources aren't enough, then none will be. I think you owe Paul an apology. Quit spinning, meadmaker-- even mijo referred to this "issue" in his opening post.

P.S. The core of these sources is well funded, and they aim to infiltrate and spread doubt--http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/discovery.html

Behe's Darwin's Black Box, which theorizes evolution cannot explain the complexity of cells, and Wells' Icons of Evolution, which argues that evolution textbooks are filled with mistakes, are two of the movement's defining books.


(oooh...and if you can, tell me how mijo's argument differs from Deepak Chopra in the link above--Deepak goes for the discontinuous fossil thing too...as well as saying, and I quote,:

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

(What's that you say, Meadmaker,...is that "I'm sorry I doubted you, Paul"? --Articulett? Talk Origins? et. al.?)

 

[Taffer]

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.

Entirely fair enough. I'm not supporting one view or another, I just thought you were being unfair to articulett.

As an aside, I have been subject to some really glaringly horrible arguments from creationists. As I admitted a few pages ago, I jumped to the defensive in this thread because of this. After Dancing David and I had a brief exchange, I saw what was really being said and admitted my mistake. Being wrong is a funny thing; it's horrible to admit, but good in the long run.

 

[Taffer]

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

My apologies. The final "him" in that post was supposed to be "ver". I've taken to using gender-neutral personal pronouns (using the ones from the novel "Diaspora" by Greg Egan.) but sometimes I mess up. Realistically, I would default to using male-gender pronouns, with the unstated understanding that they're only being used because of ease. But I realise that this can cause offense in some cases (not specfically this case, of course).

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...

I understand where you are coming from. I have feelings on this matter as well, which I won't go into as it's not relevant.

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.

*Sigh* Don't even get me started on kleinman, seriously. I had to give up on him.

 

[Taffer]

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.

I would not go nearly so far to say all mating is random. It is often assumed to be random for modelling because it simplifies things. In a large population, it may be roughly random. But in smaller populations, all too often it hardly is at all. For example, sometimes in small populations which show high levels of inbreeding, individuals will show a bias towards partners which will cause the lowest level of inbreeding.

 

[Taffer]

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.

That is a good summery. Just FYI, I always said evolution is "the non-random selection of random mutations in a population". I never characterized what I mean by "non-random". If we are speaking in terms of the mathematics, the selection most certainly is non-random. But if we are talking in terms of 'real life', it is simply a vast skewing of probabilities.

 

[articulett]

I would not go nearly so far to say all mating is random. It is often assumed to be random for modelling because it simplifies things. In a large population, it may be roughly random. But in smaller populations, all too often it hardly is at all. For example, sometimes in small populations which show high levels of inbreeding, individuals will show a bias towards partners which will cause the lowest level of inbreeding.

Assortive mating of likes due to things like the internet, "Little people clubs" and the like makes this more of an issue than you might think We assume randomness, but--well, I shan't derail this thread...but you know about the t-shirt/scent studies don't you? In genetic counseling we have these issues because the deaf socialize with other deaf people and many causes of deafness are genetic..."little people meet and mate with other little people"--albinos are more likely to find a soul mate in another albino...

Females tend to be a little more selective (less random??) in choosing partners.

 

[articulett]

That is a good summery. Just FYI, I always said evolution is "the non-random selection of random mutations in a population". I never characterized what I mean by "non-random". If we are speaking in terms of the mathematics, the selection most certainly is non-random. But if we are talking in terms of 'real life', it is simply a vast skewing of probabilities.

And why do you think he is insisting that selection is random?--that it's clearer to say it that way then to say it the way you said it?

Meadmaker--more links to show how this abuse of the word "random" and "chance" and "probability" are a major part of the wedge strategy (drive a wedge in regarding the understanding of evolution and assert an "intelligent designer" clears up the murkiness.":

Here's Bob Carroll's skeptdic entry on Intelligent design and the "random argument"...

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

intelligent design

...the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
--Victor J. Stenger*
....(read more at link above.)


And here is the latest from NCSE
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/suppl_1/8669.pdf

And http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/

with "probabilities" addressed and how it's used to obfuscate--

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/rosenhouse.html

And Mijo, I'm still waiting to hear how you explain your newfound understanding of evolution to the hypothetical creationists who don't understand how evolution is non-random and therefore presume it's too complex to happen by chance.

That is the question you asked, right? And that is the one that a few people amidst all the straw men and bad answers finally were able to answer for you.
So what will you be telling these hypothetical creationists to clear up their confusion now that you are "unconvinced that evolution is non-random"...or whatever--

 

[Taffer]

Assortive mating of likes due to things like the internet, "Little people clubs" and the like makes this more of an issue than you might think We assume randomness, but--well, I shan't derail this thread...but you know about the t-shirt/scent studies don't you? In genetic counseling we have these issues because the deaf socialize with other deaf people and many causes of deafness are genetic..."little people meet and mate with other little people"--albinos are more likely to find a soul mate in another albino...

Females tend to be a little more selective (less random??) in choosing partners.

Very true.

 

[Taffer]

And why do you think he is insisting that selection is random?--that it's clearer to say it that way then to say it the way you said it?

I don't know. I'm not going to put words in his mouth. I have my suspicions, however.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

I don't see how calling it nonrandom is any more confusing than calling it random. Really, if I use nothing other than one of those two words to describe evolution, I've completely confused the newbie.

And there certainly are phenotypes that are eliminated in one generation: Those that make the organism dead.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

But mate selection is not random with respect to your personality and desires. That is the important point, is it not?

And if the pure determinists are correct, mate selection is completely deterministic.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

I've looked at some information, and I just want to make some very quick observations. I also have only read one of the comments from last night.

I looked quickly at a couple of links articulett posted. I favored the "big guns", like the discovery institute or Answers in Genesis, over some guy who posted something in a forum, although those sources might be more instructive for the common misconceptions.

Just a couple of very quick observations.

From the wedge document:
"This Darwinian tradition of random evolution often ignores the scientific data that indicates that our universe could not have progressed by random chance. "

The wedge leaked: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/crsc_wedge.html

The quote from the wedge document that appears above doesn't actually occur in the wedge document that was linked. The document linked above had neither the word "random" nor "chance" anywhere in the text.

And let's not forget "answersingenesis" the fundie think tank trying to make the bible look scientifically accurate while making scientists look like they don't know what they are talking about. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/materialist.asp

Here's something from the AIG link:

‘a philosophy called naturalism or materialism or physicalism or simply modernism. Under any of those names this philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the cosmos and governs it as an act of free will. It God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them. In consequences, all the creating had to be done by the laws and the particles, which is to say by some combination of random chance and lawlike regularity.’ (p. 13).

Note the last sentence. Sounds an awful lot like mutation and selection to me. I think you'll find that a lot of people in the creationist camp are perfectly willing to acknowledge the role played by selection, or by "lawlike regularity", but they still reject evolution.

Finally, a warning: If we continue down this road, what you will see is that I think there is a subtle distinction between what the creationists are actually saying, versus what you think they are saying. I've read some of the threads around here, and participated in many, and subtlety is often overlooked. It's so much easier to just tell someone what they are saying than to try to appreciate a subtle distinction. I've seen it happen often enough that, statistically, it seems likely to happen again, but I'm always curious if this time it will be different.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

If you read Taffer's posts, I don't believe that is what taffer said at all.

Taffer described what he/she described as the 'inner workings' of evolution, and the argument was that the actual items which comprise the reproductive success are determined and causal. The argument was more along the lines of 'specific causal events determine the outcome of natural slelection'.

And I disagree with the characterization that an unfavorable phenotype will appraoch zero, but that is for another thread.

BTW thank you for clearing up some of the question I had.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The quote from the wedge document that appears above doesn't actually occur in the wedge document that was linked. The document linked above had neither the word "random" nor "chance" anywhere in the text.

The quote is apparently from the conference Web page, according to Panda's Thumb:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/05/some_facts_abou.html

Unfortunately, the conference site is no longer available.

We need to distinguish the use of "random evolution" by the official ID organizations and by creationists in general. The official organizations are careful not to say something truly stupid, whereas the average guy is not.

http://humanists.net/avijit/article/mukul_god.htm

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i1darwin.htm

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/intelligent-design-outwits-evolution-again.html

Finally, a warning: If we continue down this road, what you will see is that I think there is a subtle distinction between what the creationists are actually saying, versus what you think they are saying.

Can you explain this subtle distinction?

~~ Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Meadmaker,

You can accept or reject my word on this. I think you often make very good points, but in this instance I think you are simply wrong. I have been engaged in several discussions with creationists over the past few years here and elsewhere, and Articulett is correct. "Random" is often introduced as proof of the impossibility of evolution. It is a crude argument usually promulgated by teenagers who have been handed it by someone else (at least from my experience), but it is a common ploy.

I don't think it is a serious creationist argument, but Articulett isn't saying that. She's saying that it is a common ploy that creationists pull. I'll back her up 100% on that. From what I have seen it is all part of the verbal play they engage in. Kleinman has used it in the past month. Tai Chi hints at it but no one can be sure what he means because he rarely seems to follow up. I don't think anyone feels that the 'random means evolution can't happen' ploy is a cornerstone for anything; but it does exist and it's an irritant like sand in your shorts after a day at the beach.

I don't think the problem is that creationists or ID proponents are using the term in a subtle sense that we are missing. The reason folks hackles are up is because we are all tired of having to repeat the same arguments. I think it would be great if everyone knew the technical definition of 'random' and used it properly. If I see evidence of ID proponents doing that I will rejoice. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[mijopaalmc]

My explanation of evolution through natural selection as "random" may not be simpler or easier to understand, articulett, but it is correct. Calling it "random" doesn't mean that I don't think it can happen. In fact, many apparently ordered natural process are at their most basic stochastic process. For instance, the van der Waals Gas Law describes the orderly and predictable macroscopic behavior of gases, while on a microscopic level, the movement of individual gas particles is described by a probability distribution. Similarly, a nuclear fission chain reaction can be predicted when the mean free path of the unbound neutrons in the material (i.e., the mean distance a neutron has to travel before it strikes another nucleus) falls below a certain value, but the free paths of all neutrons a described by a probability distribution. Diffusion is also dependent on the mean free path of solute molecules.

The mistake in the "747 in a tornado" straw man is the assumption that order cannot arise from random processes, which is what evolutionary biologists seem to be responding to when they say that evolution is non-random. As I have said before, even though evolution function through probabilities on the individual short duration level, it is the mean of the probabilistic selection processes over many individuals and many generations that causes evolution to take on its deterministic appearance, just like gases, nuclear fission and diffusion.

 

[articulett]

T

Can you explain this subtle distinction?

~~ Paul

Yeah...cause mijo has ignorant creationists that depend on it, and you (meadmaker) and Schneibster seem to be the only ones able to provide him edification...