What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[mijopaalmc]

Yes. And since evolution is the view from averaging many individuals over large periods of time (change in allele frequency), wouldn't it also be correct to say the process has a deterministic character?

Yeah, I guess it would.

However, I am still wondering why evolution cannot be discussed as an "ensemble mean" process, much like the way classical thermodynamics was built up from statistical mechanics when I took physical chemistry.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, I guess it would.

However, I am still wondering why evolution cannot be discussed as an "ensemble mean" process, much like the way classical thermodynamics was built up from statistical mechanics when I took physical chemistry.

There is a sense in which it can be, but that analogy doesn't precisely work because of the nature of selection. Selection works on differentials of reproductive success not the mass action of particles. As long as you don't try to draw too close an analogy I don't see why you can't discuss it in that way. Keep in mind that you couldn't draw any conclusions from the analogy because those descriptions are simply not close enough, so there is danger in using it.

Crowd behaviour might be a better analogy to discuss an ensemble mean.

 

[mijopaalmc]

He boiled every answer on this thread down to, "nobody answered my question, because evolution IS random..." just like he boiled his last thread down to, "the scientists really can't explain the discontinuity in the fossil record."

Those are misstatements of what I actually said. Even though I did say, at least initially, that I didn't understand how evolution could be represented as continuous when we have an "incomplete" fossil record, I never made the arguments from ignorance or incredulity that you are saying that I made. In other words, I never said that evolution was untrue because I didn't understand it. Furthermore, I later explained why I didn't understand it and why I thought that my original questions were misleading.

As to the "swaths of evidence" you claim that you and others have presented in this thread, most of it has been in the vein of "evolution is non-random because there is a limit to what can happen and natural selection does not given every individual the same probability of producing offspring". I dismissed this because it is a straw man. Constrained and non-uniformly distributed processes are still probabilistic, and therefore describing evolution as such does not make it "non-random". I do, however, recognize that over populations and long periods of time the probabilistic events average out and give evolution a deterministic character. Thus, to say that I said "nobody answered my question, because evolution IS random..." is to deliberately obfuscate what I just said by why of explanation and summary of my posts in this thread.

 

[articulett]

Yeah, I guess it would.

However, I am still wondering why evolution cannot be discussed as an "ensemble mean" process, much like the way classical thermodynamics was built up from statistical mechanics when I took physical chemistry.

Because it doesn't help describe the deterministic elements to the incredulous hypothetical creationists in your example--who doubt that complexity could arise from chance...

With the 747 analogy, I try to show that a 747 itself is an example of something that evolved through time--all airplanes have a "common ancestor" in the first airplane, and all planes grow by selecting out that which works or is available or addresses problems from the various models being created...and getting rid of the models and designs that are obsolete... all of technology is this way. Sure it's designed. But it isn't really pre-designed...it's built on what came before--everyone who lives in a city designs it...it's not like the first people there could imagine what it would be like in a hundred years and plan accordingly... the same with internet. Evolution is really about how things change through time--how they become more complex by refining that which sticks or works or fills a niche and pruning away lesser aspects...

I think it's so great to live in a time where we can understand this in regards to our own lives--we can see it in our genomes--Darwin could not--we can know it for certain in a way that Darwin could not even imagine. I think it's really wrong the way people obfuscate this information-- the way they play semantic games and refer to "higher truths" and mischaracterize the scientific position. And these people get the glory. Deepak Chopra?? Spreading idiocy and pretending it's higher truth?

How can you succeed in academics when no one can even understand what you are saying...when your word choice confuses more than it clarifies...and allows people to hear what they want to hear rather than the facts? Isn't teaching science about understanding more--not less?

Wasn't your initial post about understanding the non-random aspects of evolution to clear up such a misunderstanding?

 

[articulett]

My mistake. However, this deterministic character only arises over large ensembles of systems. That is why I say that the deterministic character of evolution is only obvious when the stochastic processes of mutation and selection are averaged over many individuals and large periods of time.

Not so. You can see it in one generation (death before birth or reproduction)--also each mutation "forward" in evolution only had to happen once... One time....for all the organisms that evolve from that...and remember, as we go back in time we join up with common ancestors of all life forms--all people, then all primates, then all mammals,--all plants, all bacteria...etc... Behind our most recent common ancestor--every single other ancestor is identical...that is true of all life forms.

You are really missing this aspect of selection...one translocation, mutation or act of non-disjunction can be the start of something huge--it was one such act that started humans on their path from the other great apes...

 

[articulett]

Thus, to say that I said "nobody answered my question, because evolution IS random..." is to deliberately obfuscate what I just said by why of explanation and summary of my posts in this thread.

Random, probablistic, stochastic, "unconvinced that it's non-random"--"it's better to call selection random than non-random", whatever.

In any case, since I've misquoted you, we are all eagerly awaiting your clarification. How would you address the hypothetical creationists in your opening piece...presumably it has something do do with the question that is the title of the post because you said, "that explains it all" in regards to the title.

And tell us how you figured out how to address the hypothetical creationists with discontinuous record claim?

I am sincere...we deal with this crap all the time. Really...read the whole Deepak piece to see how it sounds... http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/moonbat_anti_evolutionist_deepak_chopra/

And answer the questions without sounding as confused and confusing as him. If you aren't a creationist, and are eager to clear up misunderstandings and none of us but meadmaker and schneibster were able to do it for you--then we'd all love to hear what exactly did the trick and what exactly you'd tell the hypothetical creationists you refer to. Now quit worrying about my mischaracterizations...facts speak for themselves don't they? If you goal is to address creationist misunderstandings--you've found yourself the perfect forum where people help each other do just that. Share what you've learned for the rest of us.

 

[articulett]

To my fellow "evolutionists"--please read this pharyngula posting. Deepak Chopra does the ID doubletalk so damn well-- it's one claim of ignorance on top of another--with all the favorite creationist "points" hit, misunderstood, and passed off as meaningful...Like Hovind he trips over them one on top of another before you can pin anything down and address it--and did Larry King really ask the "why are there still monkeys?" question.

Even if mijo wasn't a creationist--do you think anyone could understand whatever it is he IS saying as being a clarifying response to this drivel:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/moonbat_anti_evolutionist_deepak_chopra/
to me it feeds right into it.

(Warning, there is so much abuse of scientific understanding, concept, words like "random" and "intelligence" and "fittest" that your head will explode if you actually force yourself to read all the claims.) Meadmaker, THIS is really what we are up against. Mijo is lightweight--no one hangs onto his every word. Chopra sells books. I don't like your assessment about it being correct to call evolution random (due to a the scientific notions of random coupled with the probabalistic aspects of selection); it would not be helpful to anyone whose brain was seeped in this for any length of time--no matter what the "nuance". The things Chopra says aren't necessarily a lie--they are just misleading, and contrary to scientific understanding. He uses flowery sciency words while saying nothing at all --while being utterly obfuscating. Ugh.

He even gives a shout out to IC and "missing fossils" and how sometimes the "fittest" don't survive... vomitous. Really. And so....wrong. People read this crap or old bronze age texts and spin blathering into "higher truths" of gossamer nothingness. And they make money for this crap?

Doesn't it just sometimes seem easier to let them be stupid, and maybe even take advantage of their stupidity? Nobody loves a skeptic-- Randi is demonized while Sylvia is praised. Tsk. I just can't get the ick out of my brain from having stumbled across that page.

Curse you, Meadmaker, for sending me on a hunt for the "abuse of the term random"... I feel so... unclean...like I was alone in a room with Tai' or something....

 

[Meadmaker]

There are so many, many, things I could respond to, but there simply isn't time to respond to them all. I would be bored writing it, and everyone would be bored reading it. I'll explain how I'll handle that shortly, but first I'll be selective about a couple of things I'll respond to.

Yesterday, I challenged people to discuss the flawed creationist arguments that would be advanced by calling evolution "random", and suggested that I don't think they were understood. I note that I haven't explained my reasoning at all just yet, but already, there is this:

If all these sources aren't enough, then none will be. I think you owe Paul an apology. Quit spinning, meadmaker...

So, I haven't really said anything yet, but already I am "spinning" and I owe Paul an apology. Perhaps, in time, others will come to the same conclusion, but it seems to me that it is a bit premature to reach that conclusion just yet.

Paul made a peculiar request with regard to this discussion:

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.

It seems to me that this is an interesting request, that we ought to distinguish between what the leaders of the creationist movement say, versus the average guy. It seems like he's requesting that when we talk about creationism, we aren't allowed to quote the same guys the creationists quote. Oh, sure, the folks at the Discovery Institute don't say anything stupid, but Reverend Billy Bob down at the Baptist Church really messed it up.

Fair enough, I suppose, since we are talking about how someone might misuse the term and mislead someone else. In that sense, it's a fair request to distinguish the two. Still, there's just something a bit...weird...about it. In my discussions, I'll quote from the "experts" in the creationist field (the quotes are because it really is hard to call someone an "expert" in creationism) if it seems appropriate, but the point is well taken that since this is a discussion about how people might be misled, it is worthwhile to also quote, sometimes, those who have been misled.

Now, having said that, just what position will I be trying to defend? I wish I could state it in a single sentence. It's not like an "I'm for gun control" or "I'm against gun control" sort of debate. There are lots of loosely related topics that have clustered around this topic of randomness and evolution. Here are some statements that I believe to be true, and which others have said are likely to be false and/or misleading. I will defend any of them that people choose to dispute.

I say that "people" choose to dispute, but I'm going to focus on one particular person, and that person is Articulett, if she wishes to pursue this. More on why later.

1. The phrase "evolution is random" is an accurate description of evolution, although one must be careful to understand the sense in which the word is used.

2. Ditto for "natural selection is random".

3. The phrase "evolution is random" is no more misleading than "evolution is non-random". Each could be misleading, depending on the context. Neither is especially accurate. The process of evolution can't be summed up easily by a single adjective and neither phrase is "right" or "wrong". Both can be abused, or misunderstood.

4. Creationist arguments frequently discuss randomness and evolution, and creationist arguments are frequently flawed. However, the flaw rarely resides in the misuse of the term "random", or in the implications thereof.

5. It is not especially important to use or to avoid the use of the words "random" or "chance" when discussing evolution.

6. Evolutionists (I know that some people hate the term, but it's easier to type than any alternative) frequently misunderstand creationist arguments.

7. The failure to understand creationist arguments frequently causes evolutionists to craft ineffective counterarguments. Those arguments are often technically correct, but they are ineffective because they don't get to the real objection. (Note to Paul: You are correct that even if you crafted incredibly accurate and effective arguments, you wouldn't persuade a lot of creationists. Still, you'll convince more with an effective argument than with an ineffective one.)

8. The failure to understand creationist arguments sometimes cause people to misidentify others as creationists.

9. Noone who has provided significant input to this thread is a creationist.

I reserve the right to revise and extend my assertions.

Now, as to why Articulett, specifically. Basically, there are so many assertions flying about that we have to put some limits on it. Otherwise the thread might wander in a random direction. So, I might comment on anyone's posts, and I have no objections to any comments from anyone else. However, I'll focus on what she says. To further limit the posts and facillitate a conversation that someone has some hope of following, I ask two further things. First, you can say as much or as little as you want, but if there is one specific thing for which you would want a comment, identify that thing, one at a time. Second, if there is anything I would specifically want you to answer or address, I would ask that if I identify one thing at a time, you respond to it.

Or, if this exchange is not to your liking, feel free not to go along.

In today's posts, the question of Deepak Choprah's "hurricane in a junkyard" comments was cited as something to address, and I will take that as the first example of something I should comment on. It will be the subject of my next post.

 

[articulett]

Great...I'm hoping that meadmaker or mijo or anyone else will answer one of the bold faced questions--any of them. The topic thread title? 1. What is the evidence for evolution being non-random? (Remember, this question was asked with the presumption that it would clear up the creationist claim that scientists think this complexity comes from random chance--I quoted several creationists saying something similar --and I consider Behe and Chopra creationists even if they are loath to use the term.)

Or discuss how Chopra misuse of the word random is more misleading or wrong than your understanding of evolution.

Tell me why you would insist on calling a process random when it really isn't?--not any kind of evolution is-- Mutations are more or less random, but you can refer to selection as chaotic at best--it isn't random--selection may contain random elements but it IS THE elimination round--whether it's what DNA gets a chance to be copied again or what DNA carries a mutation to compete in the next elimination round--calling the elimination round itself random is just nutty if your aim is to clarify the "non random" elements that drive evolution as opposed to complexity coming from nothing--like random snowfall miraculously building a snowman.

This article uses the word random correctly from an evolutionary stand point. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11858-fruit-flies-display-rudimentary-free-will.html
The way you are saying it, Meadmaker, is to say that there is "no purpose" or goal--just random events piled on top of one another--but what does the piling? Natural Selection through time, that's what.

Or describe how complexity comes from randomness--it's simple, right? But not so simple when you say evolution IS random. Mijo doesn't really understand this. Surely even you can see that, in this sense--the randomness of mutations is the opposite of randomness in the selection process. Having a random component does not a random process make. Why are you and he hung up more on the probability of the events then understanding the process that builds complexity?

But I don't care what words are used and abused. I'm just telling you that the word random is ripe for abuse as this whole thread illustrates. And you will see why when you answer these questions. There are too many interpretations--and neither you or mijo seem clear on what randomness is in biology--mathematical systems--and the like. For clinical trials we use random number generators--but that doesn't make clinical trials random. The randomness is a key component to the order actually...it's how we come to tease out variables. Natural selection weeds out variables in a similar manner. We don't know how many great genomes were quashed by random astroids--but each step only has to happen one time to get a foot hold--one time in the trillions of DNA/RNA copying events going on at all times in all the living things throughout our planet...

I don't care what mijo is or isn't or how creationist is defined or why Chopra spews crap. I really want to hear a valid way to address the abuse of random and "chance" by such folks--and frankly, my vote so far is with Dawkins--"random mutation coupled with natural selection through time." Selection in this case is about as opposite from random as you can get. It's simple--no need for probabilities or stochastic or definitions--easy to correct--succinct--a good starting point for building a solid understanding. Calling evolution random is a very poor starting point for answering any of the questions above. Comparing DNA molecules to gas molecules misses the information that selection agents act upon. And wasn't that the supposed point of mijo's post? Has he gotten it? Is his understanding of random the same as in the fly article I linked? Does he have one iota of information that will supposedly help him address the hypothetical creationists he posed the this thread question for?

There you go--pick any of those questions--just one...and answer it ...you or mijo or anyone else. Or at least support your claim that mijo has some scientific nuanced view of random or that it's "correct" to say evolution is random (even if it was, why would you when it conveys no actual understanding of the process)? And I'd love to know why you think Mijo isn't an "intelligent design proponent"...how he differs from Behe or Chopra. And why, despite your admitted lack of experience with creationists, do you still hang onto this ridiculous conclusion that the word random (chance, stochastic, probable,) isn't an segue for the creationist argument that scientists think this complexity "just happened" halph-hazardly..willy nilly". How do you address the fundie in the quote who said his mama didn't raise no dummy (I hate to inform him, but she did...)--"common sense says if things don't look random, they're not!" This is the watchmaker, eye, 747, argument in a nutshell.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

I'm wondering if anyone disagrees with this:

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

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

 

[articulett]

I'm wondering if anyone disagrees with this:

I agree, but it's pretty irrelevant. The question title of this thread was about how evolution is non-random to address creationist claims like the following:

"Organisms in their current state are far too complex to have arisen by chance."

And to address deeply flawed analogies which abuse the concept of randomness like this claim by Deepak Chopra:

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

--or just to explain how order results from chaos via time and natural selection without invoking confusion regarding probabilities.

Afterall, the technicalities and philosophy of probabilies versus determinism is irrelevant when the basics of selection are not understood--especially when compared to the relative randomness of mutation.

Clearly selection is not understood in the above examples... Intelligent Design proponents have a really hard time with the non-random "selective" aspects acting on mutations through time in a series of elimination rounds to see who gets a chance to be copied again.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I agree, but it's pretty irrelevant. The question title of this thread was about how evolution is non-random to address creationist claims like the following:

"Organisms in their current state are far too complex to have arisen by chance."

And to address deeply flawed analogies which abuse the concept of randomness like this claim by Deepak Chopra:

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

--or just to explain how order results from chaos via time and natural selection without invoking confusion regarding probabilities.

Afterall, the technicalities and philosophy of probabilies versus determinism is irrelevant when the basics of selection are not understood--especially when compared to the relative randomness of mutation.

Clearly selection is not understood in the above examples... Intelligent Design proponents have a really hard time with the non-random "selective" aspects acting on mutations through time in a series of elimination rounds to see who gets a chance to be copied again.

This is the most "reconciliatory" thing that you have said. When I look at natural selection through that eyes of this post, I can agree with you. I honestly thought that selection had been worked out to the extent that what seemed to be probabilistic was actually probabilistic, or at least this was the perception that I got from reading the brief description of natural selection when I googled natural selection site:.edu. (I have read the first ten or so links from that search and they all discuss natural selection as reproductively favoring more fit individuals by increasing the number of offspring they have.) I am therefore willing to unconditionally grant that we do not know enough about selection to say for sure whether it is random or not. Thus, this whole argument seems a little silly now.

 

[Taffer]

I am therefore willing to unconditionally grant that we do not know enough about selection to say for sure whether it is random or not. Thus, this whole argument seems a little silly now.

But selection isn't random. By definition. Reality may not mimic selection, however.

 

[Schneibster]

As to the "swaths of evidence" you claim that you and others have presented in this thread, most of it has been in the vein of "evolution is non-random because there is a limit to what can happen and natural selection does not given every individual the same probability of producing offspring". I dismissed this because it is a straw man. Constrained and non-uniformly distributed processes are still probabilistic, and therefore describing evolution as such does not make it "non-random".

It's worth mentioning that technically, that's not a straw-man. A straw-man argument is to misrepresent another's point, and then argue against the misrepresentation instead of against the actual point they were making. In this case, what you're saying is that they were making a non sequitur- literally, it does not follow. In precise terms, you were saying evolution is random, and they were presenting evidence that they said proved it was not, but you claim that evidence really proved it was. It was a simple misunderstanding of the actual character of the straw-man argument.

You will find a precise description of the majority of the well-known logical fallacies here. (Please be careful; the banner ads at this site are known to lead to "anti-spyware" software that actually INSTALLS spyware on your computer. Do not, therefore, click on the banner ads at the top and bottom of the pages. I recommend a strong anti-spyware solution such as SpySweeper to prevent infection of your computer with spyware. I wouldn't provide a link to a site that is known to promulgate spyware except that it is one of the most complete technical references on logical fallacies on the 'Net. If someone knows a better, please provide it.)

 

[Taffer]

You will find a precise description of the majority of the well-known logical fallacies here. (Please be careful; the banner ads at this site are known to lead to "anti-spyware" software that actually INSTALLS spyware on your computer. Do not, therefore, click on the banner ads at the top and bottom of the pages. I recommend a strong anti-spyware solution such as SpySweeper to prevent infection of your computer with spyware. I wouldn't provide a link to a site that is known to promulgate spyware except that it is one of the most complete technical references on logical fallacies on the 'Net. If someone knows a better, please provide it.)

Wiki has fairly good descriptions of the formal fallacies.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's worth mentioning that technically, that's not a straw-man. A straw-man argument is to misrepresent another's point, and then argue against the misrepresentation instead of against the actual point they were making. In this case, what you're saying is that they were making a non sequitur- literally, it does not follow. In precise terms, you were saying evolution is random, and they were presenting evidence that they said proved it was not, but you claim that evidence really proved it was. It was a simple misunderstanding of the actual character of the straw-man argument.

You will find a precise description of the majority of the well-known logical fallacies here. (Please be careful; the banner ads at this site are known to lead to "anti-spyware" software that actually INSTALLS spyware on your computer. Do not, therefore, click on the banner ads at the top and bottom of the pages. I recommend a strong anti-spyware solution such as SpySweeper to prevent infection of your computer with spyware. I wouldn't provide a link to a site that is known to promulgate spyware except that it is one of the most complete technical references on logical fallacies on the 'Net. If someone knows a better, please provide it.)

Point taken about the non sequitur, the description of "non-random" truly does not follow from the constraints on evolution and its non-uniformity in distribution. However, I have been portrayed as arguing that anything can happen during evolution and that the probabilities of survival are uniformly distributed because I say that evolution is random. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument and therefore a straw man as well. In other words, the argument is polymorphously fallacious and we are both correct.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wiki has fairly good descriptions of the formal fallacies.

Fallacy Files is also a good source.

 

[Schneibster]

Neither the Fallacy Files nor Wikipedia's reference is as complete, unfortunately. My favorite reference, Stephen's Guide, apparently has been taken down.

A little more searching has found a mirror site here.

 

[Taffer]

I don't like it that that site calls the formal fallacies "affirming the consequent" and "denying the anticedent" 'Non Sequitur' fallacies. I've of the belief that formal fallacies such as these should be described as such, and not grouped together with informal fallacies, as they are ultimately different in nature.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It seems to me that this is an interesting request, that we ought to distinguish between what the leaders of the creationist movement say, versus the average guy. It seems like he's requesting that when we talk about creationism, we aren't allowed to quote the same guys the creationists quote. Oh, sure, the folks at the Discovery Institute don't say anything stupid, but Reverend Billy Bob down at the Baptist Church really messed it up.

What the hell? You can quote anyone you like. All I'm saying is that the official creationist apologists are much more careful with their words than the average guy.

Fair enough, I suppose, since we are talking about how someone might misuse the term and mislead someone else. In that sense, it's a fair request to distinguish the two. Still, there's just something a bit...weird...about it. In my discussions, I'll quote from the "experts" in the creationist field (the quotes are because it really is hard to call someone an "expert" in creationism) if it seems appropriate, but the point is well taken that since this is a discussion about how people might be misled, it is worthwhile to also quote, sometimes, those who have been misled.

There you go.

This has to be about explaining evolution to nonexperts, right? Who cares whether the experts call evolution random or not? Evolution is what it is.

3. The phrase "evolution is random" is no more misleading than "evolution is non-random". Each could be misleading, depending on the context. Neither is especially accurate. The process of evolution can't be summed up easily by a single adjective and neither phrase is "right" or "wrong". Both can be abused, or misunderstood.

I think it's more misleading, because you continually ignore the fact that evolution is nonrandom with respect to the environment.

7. The failure to understand creationist arguments frequently causes evolutionists to craft ineffective counterarguments. Those arguments are often technically correct, but they are ineffective because they don't get to the real objection. (Note to Paul: You are correct that even if you crafted incredibly accurate and effective arguments, you wouldn't persuade a lot of creationists. Still, you'll convince more with an effective argument than with an ineffective one.)

I doubt it. You seem to assume that a creationist wants to be disabused of any false notions he might have.

9. Noone who has provided significant input to this thread is a creationist.

If you say so.

~~ Paul