What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Taffer]

Here's how I would address it.

His argument is basically:

No random process can produce life as we know it.
Evolution is a random process.
Therefore evolution could not have produced life as we know it.
My theory that includes metaphysics explains life as we know it.

I would address the first premise. You seem to be insisting that we try to address the second premise.

After showing that a random process could produce life as we know it, I would note that the last line is both unnecessary and unsupported.

Well, a small correction as I see it:

1) No random process can lead to complexity.
2) Life is complex.
3) Evolution is a random process, and is used to explain how life arose.
C) Therefore, evolution could not have given rise to life.

If I were addressing this argument, I would counter both 1 and 3, and put in a word for 2 as well. 1, in that a random process most certainly can lead to complexity. 2, in that "complex" is a rather arbitrary descriptor. 3, in that evolution has non-random elements which produce highly-skewed probabilities.

 

[Meadmaker]

And I do think we got here by chance.

Ditto.

To me, the interesting question is why so many people would insist we didn't.

 

[Taffer]

Ditto.

To me, the interesting question is why so many people would insist we didn't.

Because of a lack of solid definition of "random" and "random process", IMHO. Mutation is random, selection is, by definition, not. Note that nature doesn't always follow true selection, of course (genetic drift, random killings, etc).

So to say "we got here by chance" could mean either "the mutations which were selected were random, thus the final outcome was random" or "the mutations which were selected were random, but once they existed, the final outcome was basically determined". That's why we need a defintion.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Instead of arguing back and forth, why don't we find a definate definition of "random", with a cited source, so we can discuss that?

I agree.

[soapbox]
Ultimately 'random' is simply a term to denote ignorance. This assumes, of course, a material perspective.

There is either determinism, indeterminism, or some combination; or the universe is ruled by Mind. When we speak of 'evolution' we work at a level of abstraction in which determinism rules (if true indeterminism arises only from quantum levels). So 'random' refers only to our inability to predict an outcome based on our limited knowledge. We simply do not know how mutations are likely to arise -- there are many mechanisms and we lack the knowledge to predict them. We have a very good idea of how selection will work and can pretend at least that we know how it will work to prune variability (or possibly even promote it), so we speak of it as non-random. But, this does not refer to some integral aspect of the world -- it refers to our level of knowledge about the world.

Ultimately this is a fluff debate. It concerns an abstraction of our ignorance and pretends that abstraction describes some integral aspect of reality. Like the free will debate that must be viewed ultimately in terms of determinism and/or true freedom (an aspect of some sense of Mind), this debate really turns on the same fudging of terms. Compatibilism in the free will debate is used to gloss over the fact that there is nothing really compatible about free will and determinism ultimately. It solves a different problem -- an ethical issue. It works at a higher level of abstraction than the base deterministic world (which may have a deeper base of indeterminism); so does the word 'random'.

If we really want to get down to brass tacks we should abandon these higher level abstractions that fire debate (because they don't describe the ultimate issue but gloss over it) and talk about what the real issue is. Is the world ultimately material or mind? ID proponents manipulate the definitions to 'prove' that material processes cannot account for our world, though they will in the next breath often invoke the Cosmological Argument, which critically depends on determinism and cause-effect. 'Evolutionists' contend that material forces are sufficient.

I know these issues were brought up earlier in the thread. I resurrected them because they really are central to the debate. Arguments about philosophy of mind, free will, and this are really just arguments about the nature of reality. They go on for pages and pages because both sides pretend that the higher level abstractions ('random', 'mind', 'free will') describe something about the world when they don't. They are just abstractions. Mutations don't just happen out of the clear blue. They occur on a matrix -- DNA that follows certain rules -- and they have a cause. They are determined by prior forces. While they can assume many forms, only certain forms provide survival value and the selection process culls the unsuccessful and promotes the successful. 'Random', in this debate, is not 'disordered'; it is 'unpredictable' (not in theory, but in practice). It is an epistemic term. We know that such unpredictable processes produce order, as many (particularly Schniebster and Myriad) have demonstrated throughout this thread.

Since we treat 'information' as 'not disordered', it should be clear that the process of evolution, whatever 'random' (unpredictable because of our limited knowledge) inputs, is clearly 'not disordered' since it creates 'information'. The ev model, and all the recent work on genetic change and selection, demonstrate this fact clearly. Every IDer who admits the reality of 'microevolution' has already lost this debate because they admit that this supposedly 'random' process creates 'information'.

I don't really care if we call it 'random' or not. If we want to call 'evolution' 'random', then fine. The consequence is that 'random' processes create information and account for life, just as they account for organized storms, the process of osmosis, etc. If we replace 'random' with unpredictable it might help, but then someone will object that mutations are not unpredictable in theory but only in practice because of our limited knowledge. So, whatever.
[/soapbox]

Sorry. Just had to get that off my chest.

 

[articulett]

Definition of Random

Random: The process by which an outcome is determined solely by chance, for example, by a coin flip.

A randomized controlled trial is a clinical trial that involves at least one test treatment and one control treatment and in which the treatments to be administered are selected by a random process, such as the use of a table of random numbers.

The opposite of random is nonrandom. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5203

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness:

In biology

The theory of evolution ascribes the observed diversity of life to random genetic mutations some of which are retained in the gene pool due to the improved chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them.

The characteristics of an organism arise to some extent deterministically (e.g., under the influence of genes and the environment) and to some extent randomly. For example, the density of freckles that appear on a person's skin is controlled by genes and exposure to light; whereas the exact location of individual freckles seems to be random.

Why the wording is important: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Why even mutations aren't truly random (in the mathematical sense), much less selection:
http://physics.nad.ru/engboard/messages/839.html

Everyone agrees that if you are using random to mean "without a purpose"--that is, the layman's definition--then, yes, we are here by chance.

However calling evolution itself a "random process" confuses more than it explains. It is natural selection...and the ways it is not random that people have a hard time with. Really. I don't think there is disagreement about what evolution is or isn't among scientists--but biologists have a lot of experience in this field, understand the details, and understand the best way to communicate the concept. Those who deal with creationists (see talk origins link above) are very aware of how the lack of clarity in the word "random" and "chance" leave gaps with which many a guru insert their claims.

Fooled by Randomness is an excellent book on the topic--humans are pattern seeking and meaning seeking creatures. If your goal is clarity and helping someone understand evolution in regards to life forms--then the fact that some changes give a reproductive or survival advantage is very important.

Otherwise, this is what a creationist hears: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=661&m=1

It boils down to this canard which is kleinman's mantra: So, the question is... Can you provide an example of a random mutation that is known to increase the information content of the genome?

I don't have delusions that I can explain things to a hard core "intelligent design" proponent--especially if he's an older guy. I aim for clarity and teaching young people. It feels a lot less like beating one's head on the wall.
They are so much less likely to play semantic games to pull the meaning they want out of the facts that are.

 

[articulett]

Regarding mijo's claim"

I only ask this, because I am thoroughly disappointed in the evidence that I have received from the posters in this thread. No-one to my knowledge has either explained how a process that operates on probability is non-random or directed me toward a resource that does.

This talks about the very precise mathematical definition of "random"
http://www.random.org/

As does this: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/random.html

Many feel that "true randomness" is as unlikely in the real world as a "perfect circle" http://physics.nad.ru/engboard/messages/839.html

(You can always refine it and make it "more random"...hence nothing is truly random by the strictest definition of the world...not even mutation; much less selection.)

Many people have told you how evolution is non-random and directed you to sources that show just that. The problem is the word random and how you want to define it. It is equally true to say "nothing is really random" as it is to say "evolution is random". Both are uninformative. It all depends on what definition of random you are using. And I'm curious as to why you keep needing to define evolution in terms of that word or synonyms of that word? That is the easiest part of the definition--it's the non-random aspects that get tricky.

 

[Meadmaker]

Otherwise, this is what a creationist hears: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=661&m=1

It boils down to this canard which is kleinman's mantra: So, the question is... Can you provide an example of a random mutation that is known to increase the information content of the genome?

So? Answer the question.

It's a very complicated answer because you have to describe "information content" in order to answer the question. When you are done, you then have to discuss at what point the "information content" actually entered the genome, or whether it is truly in the genome or in the environoment. However, there is an answer, and the answer is not, "You are either stupid or lying so I won't talk to you."

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So? Answer the question.

It's a very complicated answer because you have to describe "information content" in order to answer the question. When you are done, you then have to discuss at what point the "information content" actually entered the genome, or whether it is truly in the genome or in the environoment. However, there is an answer, and the answer is not, "You are either stupid or lying so I won't talk to you."

I don't think it is all that complicated. We define 'information content' generally by an increase in protein variability (that is one part of the definition; there are many other parts as well) or significant change in morphology.

So here are two 'mutations' that increase information content. Gene duplication with modification of the second copy to create a useful protein. And mutation in either the regulation of hox genes so that a particular hox gene is active for a longer period of time -- creates longer neck (more vertebrae; or consequently change the genes that increase the size of individual vertebrae so that we see a giraffe's neck).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The process of mutation generates "random hands". The process of selection kills off the ones that aren't "royal flushes". Any given "hand", i.e. offspring that has mutated, is just as complex as the "royal flush", i.e. the organism that will survive and pass on its genes. However, it takes more information describe "an organism that will survive" vs. "some descendant of the common ancestor".

Just forget the word complex. It'll bring nothing but heartache. Evolution leads to an increase in the Shannon information content of genomes.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Definition of Random

Random: The process by which an outcome is determined solely by chance, for example, by a coin flip.

I can find nothing like this in my math dictionaries. In fact, this is an incorrect definition of random process, although the wording "Random: the process ..." implies that it is a correct definition.

I'm telling you, folks, we should just give up on trying to define random.

~~ Paul

 

[jimbob]

I don't think it is all that complicated. We define 'information content' generally by an increase in protein variability (that is one part of the definition; there are many other parts as well) or significant change in morphology.

From what little information theory that I know, the most information that can be carried in a system is one that *seems* random, i.e. there is no redundancy and it can not be comptessed.

I would also argue with the idea that randomness is an appeal to ignorance.
There is experimental evidence (investigating quantum entanglement) that seem to show that not even the particle "knows" what state it is in, it is not just our fundamental ability to measure. The best explaination that I am aware of is that some things are truely random.

I don't like calling evolution non-random, because
1) It leads to the conclusion that the evolution of humanity was inevitable
2) It also leads to the idea that there is a "guiding hand", and could lead to ideas that one should cull the "weak" for the "good of the species".
3) The "guiding hand" could just as easily be supernatural

I think it is better to say
1) Random mutations occur in each generation.
2) These mutations are only liklely to cause small differences from the parent(s) traits

3) If they reduce the chance of the individual reproducing, they will eventually dissapear
4) If they increase the chance of the individual reproducing, then the traits are more likely to survive.
5) If an exagerated version of this trait further increases the chances of reproduction, then any further mutations in this direction are morel likely to reproduce.
6) The baseline for the mutations is the parent(s) genetic makeup. So traits can develop over time.

Evolution can explain the mamalian eye and the bad "design" of the retina.
"Intelligent Design" can't explain poor design features caused by evolution.

 

[articulett]

So? Answer the question.

It's a very complicated answer because you have to describe "information content" in order to answer the question. When you are done, you then have to discuss at what point the "information content" actually entered the genome, or whether it is truly in the genome or in the environoment. However, there is an answer, and the answer is not, "You are either stupid or lying so I won't talk to you."

First you need to get on board as to what is meant by adding information content-- is it base pairs? genes? chromosomes? translation? increased function? Increased intelligence? Sometimes turning genes off (rendering genes "useless") has a reproductive benefit. And more isn't necessarily better when it comes to DNA--too much can be worse than too little. A single frame shift mutation can have huge consequences. The question, itself, is designed not to be answered, but to lead to the notion that "scientists can't explain it". Just like the argument that scientists think "all this happened by chance".

I don't discuss things with creationists for this very reason. This is Kleinman's basic argument--I feel drawn into a semantics game where "not understanding" is the goal. I have better things to do with my time. I prefer to educate those who really want to understand the answer and understand why the question is "bad". Getting tangled in definitions is the ploy "intelligent design" enthusiasts use to claim that since science can't answer the questions easily (similar to mijo's slam at everyone who tried and the other thread), therefore, they (or their guru or god or philosophy) can. The question itself is the problem. It is designed not to be answered so that extrapolations can be made from the lack of an "easy answer".

 

[articulett]

I can find nothing like this in my math dictionaries. In fact, this is an incorrect definition of random process, although the wording "Random: the process ..." implies that it is a correct definition.

I'm telling you, folks, we should just give up on trying to define random.

~~ Paul

I agree. My point was that there was so many definitions that the lack of precision makes the whole concept useless. Understanding evolution has very little to do with understanding probabilities and very much to do with understanding that that which "works" is passed on, built upon, refined, and honed--while that which doesn't is culled.

I think common understanding of evolution will evolve as creationists die out. Their claims are useless in regards to furthering understanding. They just get in the way, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Walter Wayne]

I can find nothing like this in my math dictionaries. In fact, this is an incorrect definition of random process, although the wording "Random: the process ..." implies that it is a correct definition.

I'm telling you, folks, we should just give up on trying to define random.

~~ Paul

People hint at the definitions they are using all the time, when they use words like "order", "haphazard", "chance", ...

When I have replied to them I have I beleive argued on there terms. When I have argued against the definition they used I have given counter-examples where lay people call processes with the same properties random.

Again, the only definition of random I have heard that doesn't apply to evolution is uniform distribution. But that definition doesn't apply to blackjack, a sum of two dice, and many other things people refer to as random.

And given that two of the aspects of this debate started are "what to teach lay people", and "are biologists [Dawkins and friends] being accurate when they say it is non-random", we should look at the many definitions that people use.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I agree. My point was that there was so many definitions that the lack of precision makes the whole concept useless. Understanding evolution has very little to do with understanding probabilities and very much to do with understanding that that which "works" is passed on, built upon, refined, and honed--while that which doesn't is culled.

I think common understanding of evolution will evolve as creationists die out. Their claims are useless in regards to furthering understanding. They just get in the way, as far as I'm concerned.

And that is, in short why I prefer to use "stochastic" or "probabilistic", which, while they are synonyms for "random", have a much more limited lexical range, precise mathematical definitions, and avoid the direct and obfuscating connotations of "random".

 

[articulett]

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml

I have sought, without success from a number of scientific authorities an answer to the following question, viz. how does the environment influence the gene, e.g. the development of the giraffe's long neck. Random mutations are not fully explanatory.
Perhaps you would be good enough to suggest a hypothesis or perhaps direct me towards further reading.

letter from P. Dawnay


Dawkins response:

You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested that it IS a good explanation. The correct explanation -- and it is indeed an excellently satisfying one -- is Darwinian natural selection. Darwinian natural selection is emphatically NOT the same thing as random mutation. Although random mutation does play a role in the theory, natural selection itself is the most important ingredient, and natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of random.

Three of my books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, and Climbing Mount Improbable, are devoted to explaining how Darwinian natural selection works, and why it is such a satisfying explanation.



As mentioned before, my science dictionary defines random as being unrelated to past or future events. It also says that it refers to all possibilities being equally likely. Evolution is wholly dependent on past events--mutations are relatively random--what survives to reproduce is not.

If that does not answer Mijo's question, then I suggest that nothing can.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would also argue with the idea that randomness is an appeal to ignorance.
There is experimental evidence (investigating quantum entanglement) that seem to show that not even the particle "knows" what state it is in, it is not just our fundamental ability to measure. The best explaination that I am aware of is that some things are truely random.

All issues which I specifically addressed above. The level of 'reality' at which we discuss 'evolution' does not involve quantum effects to any significant degree, aside from issues of randomly generated cosmic rays causing mutation.

Most of the controversy in this sort of debate arises from using 'random' to mean 'unpredictable' (based on our ignorance) and then shifting the meaning to 'disordered'. The same issues arise in many debates -- switching from one meaning of a word to another.

Ultimately I don't think it matters. As I have said before I don't care what we call it. The central ideas are what is really important.

From what little information theory that I know, the most information that can be carried in a system is one that *seems* random, i.e. there is no redundancy and it can not be comptessed.

But that is the central issue -- moving from 'seeming randomness' to thinking that 'random is a central issue of reality'. Seeming randomness is merely a statement concerning our level of knowledge. I'm not certain what the term 'random information' could mean. We treat the definition of 'information' to mean 'non-random' or rather 'non-disordered', whether or not its creation is predictable.

I don't like calling evolution non-random, because
1) It leads to the conclusion that the evolution of humanity was inevitable
2) It also leads to the idea that there is a "guiding hand", and could lead to ideas that one should cull the "weak" for the "good of the species".
3) The "guiding hand" could just as easily be supernatural

And all of that is perfectly fine. Given precisely the same inputs through time, the evolution of humanity would be inevitable, provided there are no higher order truly random quantum effects and that the quantum effects that do and did exist in the past would 'wash out' or 'smear' in exactly the same way that they did historically -- something that is entirely uncertain. But given different inputs (no big meteor or comet hitting earth to wipe out the dinosaurs) humanity would not have evolved.

If determinism is true, then determinism is true. It all depends on cause and effect.

 

[Walter Wayne]

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml

I have sought, without success from a number of scientific authorities an answer to the following question, viz. how does the environment influence the gene, e.g. the development of the giraffe's long neck. Random mutations are not fully explanatory.
Perhaps you would be good enough to suggest a hypothesis or perhaps direct me towards further reading.

letter from P. Dawnay


Dawkins response:

You rightly say that random mutation is NOT a good explanation for the evolution of giraffes' necks or, indeed, of anything else! Fortunately, nobody has ever suggested that it IS a good explanation. The correct explanation -- and it is indeed an excellently satisfying one -- is Darwinian natural selection. Darwinian natural selection is emphatically NOT the same thing as random mutation. Although random mutation does play a role in the theory, natural selection itself is the most important ingredient, and natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of random.

Three of my books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, and Climbing Mount Improbable, are devoted to explaining how Darwinian natural selection works, and why it is such a satisfying explanation.

It is fine to emphasize natural selection on shorter time scales. However, I take issue with several points in Dawkin's reply.

First of all, he says that "natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of random". It isn't, by most definitions. Most people here have accepted that on occasion individuals get weeded out by accident. It is fine to dismiss occasional event in large populations, but we don't always have such a situation.

Second, he says "natural selection itself is the most important ingredient [in the theory]." How can one say that one is more important than the other when both play such a critical. Sure, one needs natural selection to explain the giraffe's neck. But without mutation we would will still be in a world of single-celled bacteria, and there would be no giraffe necks to discuss. The beauty of evolution is not only that it explains the the giraffe's neck, but the emergence of the variety of life we see around us from a more "humble" past.

One cannot place two such vital and necessary aspects of the theory into an order of importance. Each is nothing without the other.

As mentioned before, my science dictionary defines random as being unrelated to past or future events. It also says that it refers to all possibilities being equally likely. Evolution is wholly dependent on past events--mutations are relatively random--what survives to reproduce is not.

That is horrible definition, technically or in common usage. If I am taking the sum of two die, does the sum become non-random after I have rolled the first die. After all, before I roll the first one the distribution is triangular on the interval [2,12] where as after rolling the first one and seeing it came up as a 5, the distribution of the sum is now uniform on [6,11].

And why would the science book even include future events? They must have an understanding of causality that I don't. The definition in your science book is lacking.

 

[jimbob]

sorry to flog a dying horse, but:

Does anyone know if/what timescale it takes for quantum effects to affect a day's weather?

Something like this could easily alter the moment of conception for any species common ancestor.

This would make the evolution of any particular species not inevitable in fact as well as "pragmatically".

The evolutionary niches would still probably be filled.

Jim

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

sorry to flog a dying horse, but:

Does anyone know if/what timescale it takes for quantum effects to affect a day's weather?

Something like this could easily alter the moment of conception for any species common ancestor.

This would make the evolution of any particular species not inevitable in fact as well as "pragmatically".

The evolutionary niches would still probably be filled.

Jim

I'm not sure how we could ever know that without a quantum leap in knowledge. We think that quantum effects tend to 'wash out' at larger scales. The quantum level is many orders of magnitude lower than the levels at which life processes and weather occur. The reason we can speak of determinism in the first place is because those quantum effects seem to cancel out to a marked degree so that we can speak of cause-effect.

It could very well be that quantum weirdness does produce effects at higher levels that could affect the weather or life, and as I mentioned up above, this would introduce a truly random input to the process. But, for the most part, this does not seem to be the case. Or, rather, it isn't the case very often, or we would see more 'true random' events -- events that could not be predicted even in theory. At this point, with our limitations in knowledge, I don't know how we could distinguish between the truly unpredictable (even in theory) and the unpredictable because we lack knowledge.

Determinism is either true or it isn't. Same is true of indeterminism. And Mind being the ultimate source. We seem to see determinism all around us, but our minds are constructed so as to see cause and effect, so that seeming appearance may simply be an illusion. As to the issue of Mind being the ultimate cause of reality, well we just have to decide on idealism for that one. I'm not aware of any evidence that could possibly distinguish between objective idealism and materialism.

But, as to your ultimate point, I don't think anyone has a problem with using 'random' to mean 'humans were not inevitable' -- certainly not in terms of our ability to predict such things, even if it were theoretically impossible to predict. From what I can tell Articulett is really just trying to argue against the 747 in a junkyard analogy use of the word 'random'.

For what it's worth, as I have told Walter Wayne (I think it was him) I am perfectly fine with people trying to push creationists into using the word 'random' in its technical sense and I applaud the effort. But I'm still not going to hold my breath for someone like Kleinman actually to use the word properly unless he sees some advantage to it. From what I have seen of creationists advantage means 'how can I manipulate someone to my side'.