What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Meadmaker]

It all comes down to time-scales. Viewing a selection pressure over all-time, it appears random. Viewing it over the time period organisms live for it can be considered constant or a simple function of time.

Or, to put it differently, whether or not we call evolution "random" may depend on exactly what phenomenon we are trying to describe. (Not to mention the definition of "random" we happen to be using at the time.) Some aspects of evolution can be best understood through stochastic models, which is why all those folks wrote those papers mijo has been referencing. Other aspects of evolution are best understood by saying that certain trends are predictable, and there is nothing random about them.

What interests me is the phenomenon where any reference to randomness draws a knee-jerk hostility. It has become a separator. If you say "random", you are one of THEM. It says so right there on talkorigins.com.

We've seen it on this thread. Mijo has been asked repeatedly if he's a creationist or ID supporter. I've been asked it as well, on this thread and the precursor to it. The other "randomites" have been told that there is good reason to believe that they are creationists, too. None of us has ever even hinted that we might be creationists or ID supporters, but using the R word is enough cast a cloud of suspicion.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Or, to put it differently, whether or not we call evolution "random" may depend on exactly what phenomenon we are trying to describe. (Not to mention the definition of "random" we happen to be using at the time.) Some aspects of evolution can be best understood through stochastic models, which is why all those folks wrote those papers mijo has been referencing. Other aspects of evolution are best understood by saying that certain trends are predictable, and there is nothing random about them.

Which is why evolution is summed up with the phrase "random mutation and natural selection", to indicate that there are some aspects that are best thought of as random and some non-random.

What interests me is the phenomenon where any reference to randomness draws a knee-jerk hostility. It has become a separator. If you say "random", you are one of THEM. It says so right there on talkorigins.com.

Only when the reference to random is made with respect to natural selection. Random mutation already implies there is randomness in the population before and after selection has taken place. Natural selection operates on population characteristics to alter their variance and/or shift their mean. Considering its action over reasonable periods of time, it is best understood as non-random.

We've seen it on this thread. Mijo has been asked repeatedly if he's a creationist or ID supporter. I've been asked it as well, on this thread and the precursor to it. The other "randomites" have been told that there is good reason to believe that they are creationists, too. None of us has ever even hinted that we might be creationists or ID supporters, but using the R word is enough cast a cloud of suspicion.

So as this thread has evolved, we've witnessed some non-random selection based on characteristics of the posts?

 

[Meadmaker]

Only when the reference to random is made with respect to natural
selection. Random mutation already implies there is randomness in the population before and after selection has taken place. Natural selection operates on population characteristics to alter their variance and/or shift their mean. Considering its action over reasonable periods of time, it is best understood as non-random.

One of the topics that has been beaten to death on this thread is that there are certain characteristics of the evolutionary process that are best understood by using random models. That's why all those people publishing the papers mijo has been citing have used stochastic models, including stochastic selection models, too. Are they doing something wrong? I don't think so.

Moreover, what I was talking about was what I called the "knee jerk hostility" to the term. This thread isn't just talking about which term is better. This thread has dealt with whether or not people who prefer the term "random" are actually creationists.

Mijo asked a simple question. What evidence is there that evolution is non-random? It has a simple answer. There is none. You could stop there. Another option would be to go on and say evolution is a random process, but like many other random processes, it has certain very predictable results. If you were really, really, interested in the topic, you could go on and say that some of those results are so predictable that even calling the process "random" is somewhat misleading.

Instead of that, mijo and everyone who agrees with him has been the target of negative commentary, and several have been questioned about whether they were creationists. I find that level of hostility toward a choice of terms to be an interesting phenomenon.

 

[mijopaalmc]

There is none. You could stop there. Another option would be to go on and say evolution is a random process, but like many other random processes, it has certain very predictable results. If you were really, really, interested in the topic, you could go on and say that some of those results are so predictable that even calling the process "random" is somewhat misleading.

The problem is that many people including the proponents of evolution (e.g., Dawkins and articlett) don't have a very good idea that predictable results can arise from random processes. Creationists and IDists certainly don't and that's why they argue that "random" evolution is impossible; they see "random" (i.e., with out purpose or direction) as the only proper description of naturalistic evolution and argue that, since evolution (if it exists) has to be "random" to be naturalistic, the fact that evolution (if it exists) has direction (if not purpose, in their opinion) means that evolution (if it exists) is guided by a supernatural force (i.e., God). What evolution proponents then do is argue that evolution is non-random because it contradicts the first premise (i.e., that evolution is "random"), but it simutaneously plays into the second premise (i.e., that non-random evolution requires a supernatural guide) by acknowledging that evolution is "non-random". What needs to be addressed is what exactly is meant by "random" and which words may better describe evolution rather than "random" or its opposite. In other words, the main problem I have with calling evolution "non-random" or for that matter "random", other than that it is simply inaccurate or unclear, is that it lacks the subtlety that is necessary for a for even a basic description of a complex scientific theory such as evolution.

 

[Meadmaker]

The problem is that many people including the proponents of evolution (e.g., Dawkins and articlett) don't have a very good idea that predictable results can arise from random processes.

I'm not sure that's true. I think Dawkins does know that. I think he has a visceral dislike of the term "random" when applied to his life's work and something he feels strongly about.

 

[jimbob]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2660

Humans evolved, God guided the process: 27%

I presume that this is Behe's position, "supernatural selection"

How could God guide the process?

From the last common ancestor of chimps and humans (to keep it simple)

By intefering constantly in the lives of every organism that impacted on the ancestors of humanity to ensure its emergence?

Or by "the inevitable rules" "guiding evolution towards its pinnacle"?​

Many of the less savoury political consequences of of oppression in the twentieth century were justified in part by a misrepresentation of evolution as being directed "race x is less evolved than race y" so should be kept from polluting race y. Bacteria are "more evolved" than me, as their have had more generations than mine.

I think it is a bad idea to define an argument in opposition to a particular wing of your opponents. Claiming it is nonrandom is playing into their hands.

Explaining why it is not the 747 in a junkyard is a better bet.

I don't only have a semantic difficulty with the word nonrandom, it is philosophical.

I can see why you are annoyed by the pepole twisting words but the numbers in evolution are huge: Maybe this could be emphasised.

For example E. coli, with a generation length of 20 minutes, would have aproximately 26300 generations in a year, this provides potentially 10²⁶³⁰⁰ (or ten with 26300 zeros after it) potential individuals in one year (of course this many could not actually survive, the mass still being billions of times greater than more than 10²⁶⁰⁰⁰tonnes...

How many straight royal flushes in a row could you expect in 26300 hands? And that is only one year for E. Coli, starting with one single bacterium . There are about a million million bacteria to a single gram, so how many royal flushes in 26300 million million hands?

Add the culling of the weakest and you can explain it all with probability and natural selection.

I still see no reason to doubt mijo's belief

As I see it there are several arguments, three below:

ID proponent: Evolution is supposed to be random like a 747 in a junkyard, so the only explainiation is that the designer guided evolution.

New ager /Shaguza/DJJ etc: Evolution is nonrandom, humanity is the pinnicle of evolution due to the guiding principles of life.

Me: Evolution is probabilistic with huge numbers. And what is considered irreducibly complex has often proved to be very reducible e.g. the eye...

Jim

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think what we can all agree on is using either of the phrases "Evolution is random" or "Evolution is non-random" are really poor ways to convey the important points about the theory of evolution.

Personally, I like "Random mutation coupled with undirected natural selection". I bet most people could understand what that means with a little bit of explanation in less time than it would take to explain what a Stochastic Process is.

 

[jimbob]

Actually my previous calculation was wrong: only 10⁸⁰⁰⁰ approximatly

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think what we can all agree on is using either of the phrases "Evolution is random" or "Evolution is non-random" are really poor ways to convey the important points about the theory of evolution.

Personally, I like "Random mutation coupled with undirected natural selection". I bet most people could understand what that means with a little bit of explanation in less time than it would take to explain what a Stochastic Process is.

The point is, though, that natural selection itself is random even though it is biased toward certain traits that benefit organisms in their environment. In fact here is even debate within the philosophy of science as to whether genetic drift, which is described by most biologists as "random", and selection, which is described by the biologists who are favorites of the "non-randomites" as "non-random", are actually the same thing.

The justification for using a so-called statistical approach is explained in great detail in the "Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift" and elaborated on (not always favorably) in the following 11 articles:

Author(s): Brunnander, B (Brunnander, Bjorn)
Title: What is natural selection?
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 22 (2): 231-246 MAR 2007

Author(s): Millstein, RL (Millstein, Roberta L.)
Title: Natural selection as a population-level causal process
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 57 (4): 627-653 DEC 2006

Author(s): Pigliucci, M
Title: Genetic variance-covariance matrices: A critique of the evolutionary quantitative genetics research program
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 21 (1): 1-23 JAN 2006

Author(s): Hinzen, W
Title: Spencerism and the causal theory of reference
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 21 (1): 71-94 JAN 2006

Author(s): Reisman, K (Reisman, Kenneth); Forber, P (Forber, Patrick)
Title: Manipulation and the causes of evolution
Source: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 72 (5): 1113-1123 DEC 2005

Author(s): Brandon, RN
Title: The difference between selection and drift: A reply to Millstein
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 20 (1): 153-170 JAN 2005

Author(s): Bouchard, F; Rosenberg, A
Title: Fitness, probability and the principles of natural selection
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 55 (4): 693-712 DEC 2004

Author(s): Pust, J
Title: Natural selection and the traits of individual organisms
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 19 (5): 765-779 NOV 2004

Author(s): Stephens, C
Title: Selection, drift, and the "forces" of evolution
Source: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 71 (4): 550-570 OCT 2004

Author(s): Walsh, DM
Title: Bookkeeping or metaphysics? The Units of Selection debate
Source: SYNTHESE, 138 (3): 337-361 FEB 2004

Author(s): Matthen, M
Title: Is sex really necessary? And other questions for Lewens
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 54 (2): 297-308 JUN 2003

I know it is a big no-no to mention philosophy and debate among a certain group of evolution proponents because the statement "evolution is non-random" is considered to be a "fact of evolution" and saying that there is debate "muddies the waters". However, if the way which biologists talk about natural selection and genetic drift except when specifically addressing whether or not either one is "random" is identical, it seems arbitrary to preserve the distinction.

 

[biomorph]

The point is, though, that natural selection itself is random even though it is biased toward certain traits that benefit organisms in their environment.

sorry but i must say this seems inaccurate, natural selection is not neccessarily biased towards anything.
Randomly mutated organisms filter through the non-random seive of natural selection. Those that reproduce simply pass through the sieve. The seive does not appear have a randomness towards any particular individual, as it acts on all the individuals passing through it, one by one, individually...... It is the individuals that randomly can or cannot pass through it. If anything , I would suggest that natural selection (the ultimate sieve of life!) has to be non-random, otherwise organised complexity would probably unlikely to arise, at all possibly.

In fact here is even debate within the philosophy of science as to whether genetic drift, which is described by most biologists as "random", and selection, which is described by the biologists who are favorites of the "non-randomites" as "non-random", are actually the same thing.

There may be a "philosophy of science", but philosophy is not a science............and genetic drift is not from a pressure that natural selection applies.

It's surely the result of non-random selective process that results in indidvuals carrying traits that ensured their survival. The individuals that were not so equipped were also non-randomly removed from the gene pool.

 

[articulett]

If the question that evolution is intended to answer is "How did organism X get to be the way it is?" then I can see how it can be argued that natural selection is the opposite of random. In this context evolution is the process that created the genetic code that organism X has. The increase in content of the organism's genome can not come from the random or spurious aspects of it's environment, but it can come from constant pressures. Any culling of the population that cannot be overcome by incremental changes in sequencing cannot contribute to the refinement of the sequence. Such culling does occur, but it's just noise. The continued development of the information content of the gene is entirely due to circumstances which affect many organisms and or generations. Environmental randomness can not contribute useful data. The definitions that we use that seem circular aren't so when they are evaluated only in past tense. We can say that organisms(or genes) are fit because they survived and reproduced. We can say an environmental factor was a selective pressure because it caused some organisms to die and not others. We can say another environmental factor was just random happenstance because it made no contribution to the genetic makeup of any lineage. It's all completely self consistent, and in this model natural selection IS the opposite of random. This formulation of evolution gives clear answers to why organisms have their present forms, and it's terms are unambiguous, non circular, and persuasive. However, it only works in the past (the further the better).

I don't think that the temporal limitations of this theory make it any less interesting or convincing. In this theory we know the past and not the future. That seems about right to me, seems to jive with everything else I've experienced about the flow of time.

Wow. Beautifully stated. Yes. We can look at genomes and tell what was preferentially passed on...what mutations turned out to be winner...and what genes no longer were necessary to ensure the survival and reproductive success of their vectors. Some time after the orangutan split, the primates had a mutation in the vitamin C making gene which made them, alone among the mammals, unable to produce vitamin C inside their body. But, in a fruit eating species, this was not liability in a genome that conferred many other advantages.

We can't tell the future...I mean we can tell that we will find fossils and that DNA will tell us where they fit on the tree of life (Just as t-rex collagen shows that chickens are their descendants)...we can predict Mendalian inheritance and and do preimplantation genetic counseling. Amniocentesis will tell you the sex of the offspring with nearly 100% accuracy and far better than all prophets, gurus, and the like. We can say that animals that produce the most offspring produce the most possible mutations and are thus likely to be winners in adaptation with coming climate change. We can't predict what these microbes, insects, algae, fungi, rodents, etc. will be...or how they will affect us. But we can be certain they will. All of life is connected.

If I presume people are creationists, it is because they seem so resistant to allowing themselves or understand the beauty of what you stated above. Because once a person understands design from the bottom up...or emerging complexity....there is no need for a supernatural explanation. In fact, it becomes superfluous. There is no divine information...just facts that are the same for everybody.

I know that humans are prone to categorization (including me--calling people creationists)...it's really how babies learn of the world--there are overgeneralizations and groupings (all spherical things are "balls")--there is a tendency to think in terms of black and white, divide the world into races, religions, plants and animals, good and bad--"fit" and "unfit"--but in biology...there is no dividing line...You cannot describe the richness of color using black and white terms. We are all part of the same tree of life. We are all connected. The random parts are easy to understand--very cool too. but it's the connection--the way the genomes are connect all by natural selection through time that is the part that matters... that is the part that the wedge strategy attacks. That is the part the Behe doesn't "get" either on purpose or by accident.

I am heartened to hear that you do "get" it. Really. I think you said it so well. I think you could explain the "non-random" parts of evolution to someone...the way complexity is built from the randomness. I apologize for calling you a creationist, but I hope you can see with Behe's example that their aim is to sound very similar...to sound sciency...but to obfuscate rather than clarify. That truly is their goal. And the biggest way the most common techniques involve muddying understanding of natural selection so that it looks like some "intelligent designer" must have had a hand in the process somehow. It's an easy explanation when humans seek answers to that which they don't understand--but it's not a real answer. Natural selection is.

Isn't it much more amazing to understand how the happenstance of two prokaryotic cells merging after millions of years of existence on our planet turned out to be the first step of all the life we observe today?--and before that...the first successful replicators--and before that--the first RNA chains--

We can't tell what is next any more than we can guess what our cities will look like a hundred years hence. We know today they look nothing at all like what existed 100 years ago. (I'd be sitting in a desert right now.) But we can say that it and everything about life on earth will be altered from our having existed and been a part of the tree of life. I just don't think terms like random and stochastic do this concept justice--describing it that way (even if it's meaningful on some level to some people seems to ride roughshod over the incremental building of "seeming" design and complexity. Isn't that worth taking the time to understand? I would want my students to hear your explanation...I can't imagine anyone getting any useful information out of someone describing evolution as a "stochastic process". Just as I cannot imagine anyone getting any useful information out of all of Behe's academic wording and pedantry and supposed "rigorous understanding of evolution".

 

[articulett]

Or, to put it differently, whether or not we call evolution "random" may depend on exactly what phenomenon we are trying to describe. (Not to mention the definition of "random" we happen to be using at the time.) Some aspects of evolution can be best understood through stochastic models, which is why all those folks wrote those papers mijo has been referencing. Other aspects of evolution are best understood by saying that certain trends are predictable, and there is nothing random about them.

What interests me is the phenomenon where any reference to randomness draws a knee-jerk hostility. It has become a separator. If you say "random", you are one of THEM. It says so right there on talkorigins.com.

We've seen it on this thread. Mijo has been asked repeatedly if he's a creationist or ID supporter. I've been asked it as well, on this thread and the precursor to it. The other "randomites" have been told that there is good reason to believe that they are creationists, too. None of us has ever even hinted that we might be creationists or ID supporters, but using the R word is enough cast a cloud of suspicion.

That is me who is doing that. And for very good reason. It is because you argue identically. You claim that the way you say things is not a common creationist tactic despite tons of evidence showing it is. If people cannot grasp the incremental nature of evolution...the way natural selection is a force that shapes all that we see in regards to life on earth--then it all seems too complex to have come about by chance--and an intelligent designer seems "necessary"-- But once you understand the process, he seems superfluous (or he can only exist outside of nature as Francis Collins god does). Understanding natural selection allows people to understand that which they are told they could never understand...that they need prophets etc. to interpret for them. Behe's aim is very clearly to make understanding natural selection impossible so that "we are here from randomness" looks as incredible as "we are here by design". But you know, as well as I do, that it's isn't just randomness...it's the bottom up building of complexity. Almost all creationist arguments are about claiming that science says we are here randomly and then attacking peoples conceptualization of what that means while inserting a "better explanation"--of an "intelligent designer" who appeals to the ego. But there are many "designers"--all unintelligent...carrying info. into the future according to the forces acting upon them.

Calling this process "random" doesn't clarify the confusion inherent in the world, nor does it allow for an understanding of natural selection--the key that is the "HOW" the complexity we see about us came to be. Mutation is anything that happens to the strands of DNA (or RNA) themselves--Selection is all physical forces that act upon DNA that keep such that it keeps it from getting copied or allows it to be copied yet again. It's the sieve. Random bits might make it through the sieve, but the sieve, itself, is not random. You can shake a sieve "randomly", but that still doesn't make the sieve random. You can poke random large holes in the sieve...but the sieve itself is still not random. Mijo's definition is akin to poking holes in the sieve so that some big stuff gets through and some small stuff sticks and doesn't get through--and then calling the whole sieve random because of this. I'm not arguing that it makes it "non-random"--(and that is another creationist strawman, btw)--I'm saying all those words are not helpful in describing sieves...nor are they informative in describing the selection process...nor are they at all useful if the goal is to understand the "non-random" aspects of evolution...just as useless as if someone wanted to understand the non-random aspects of sifting.

 

[biomorph]

Mutation is anything that happens to the strands of DNA (or RNA) themselves--Selection is all physical forces that act upon DNA that keep such that it keeps it from getting copied or allows it to be copied yet again.

forgive me but surely there are no "physical forces that act upon DNA" by natural selection as such . if there are, they are most likely non-reproductive, and discontinued. mutation of DNA is usually provided by just breeding.

It's the sieve. Random bits might make it through the sieve, but the sieve, itself, is not random. You can shake a sieve "randomly", but that still doesn't make the sieve random. You can poke random large holes in the sieve...but the sieve itself is still not random. Mijo's definition is akin to poking holes in the sieve so that some big stuff gets through and some small stuff sticks and doesn't get through--and then calling the whole sieve random because of this. I'm not arguing that it makes it "non-random"--(and that is another creationist strawman, btw)--I'm saying all those words are not helpful in describing sieves...nor are they informative in describing the selection process...nor are they at all useful if the goal is to understand the "non-random" aspects of evolution...just as useless as if someone wanted to understand the non-random aspects of sifting.

I personally use the term "non-random" as "not particular to any individual". Just to clarify.

I also think that that understanding non-random systems is essential to know anything worth while about the seive. It defines its essential function dosn't it?
Maybe your "non-random" and my "non-random" are different....but not random.....

 

[articulett]

The problem is that many people including the proponents of evolution (e.g., Dawkins and articlett) don't have a very good idea that predictable results can arise from random processes. Creationists and IDists certainly don't and that's why they argue that "random" evolution is impossible; they see "random" (i.e., with out purpose or direction) as the only proper description of naturalistic evolution and argue that, since evolution (if it exists) has to be "random" to be naturalistic, the fact that evolution (if it exists) has direction (if not purpose, in their opinion) means that evolution (if it exists) is guided by a supernatural force (i.e., God). What evolution proponents then do is argue that evolution is non-random because it contradicts the first premise (i.e., that evolution is "random"), but it simutaneously plays into the second premise (i.e., that non-random evolution requires a supernatural guide) by acknowledging that evolution is "non-random". What needs to be addressed is what exactly is meant by "random" and which words may better describe evolution rather than "random" or its opposite. In other words, the main problem I have with calling evolution "non-random" or for that matter "random", other than that it is simply inaccurate or unclear, is that it lacks the subtlety that is necessary for a for even a basic description of a complex scientific theory such as evolution.

I and Dawkins and the Berekely Site, and Talk Origins are well aware of how complexity arises from randomness. Something in the environment selects--causing some of the random stuff to stick or stick together. In biology we call that "natural selection". We don't call the process itself "random" or "stochastic" because there are random elements involved. This is not because we don't understand something, it is because we do understand something. We understand that Behe and most creationist do not understand natural selection--or rather they go out of their way to make it unclear...to not describe it or to describe it in a muddled way. If your arguments sound indistinguishable or equally clear when it comes to conveying natural selection, you are contributing to peoples' inability to understand natural selection--which is the goal of many a creationist as has been repeatedly noted.

And you are wrong across the board. Read Ivor or Whitey. There are many ways to describe evolution. Everybody understands the random part. It's natural selection and the way it builds complexity through time that people have trouble understanding. Understanding natural selection is the key to understanding the non-random aspects of evolution which was your question...It is what allows whitey to go from characterizing Darwins finches as random to given a beautifully simplistic explanation as to how we got from that random event to the variety of finch species we see today. It just is incorrect and very obfuscating to claim it happened randomly or stochastically or by "chance alone". His description conveys valuable information. Yours does not.

Nobody needs to address what is meant by random or stochastic until the basic principle is understood...just as you don't talk about remainders until division is understood. It just isn't necessary for understanding. A layman's definition is fine when it comes to how genomes change--Natural selection is the key for understanding the building of complexity through time. Nothing about your description adds to the understand of natural selection and, in fact, it confuses understanding. That is exactly what Behe does. It's you who don't understand how readily such unclear explanations are grabbed onto and proffered by creationists to muddy understanding so that design from the top down can be proffered as the answer. Instead, teach about "design" from the bottom up and use words that convey that if you truly want to understand and convey the understanding of the "non-random" aspects of evolution. You are using "black and white" terms to describe a colorful concept. You are talking about holes in the sieve without conveying what a sieve is or what it does.

As the biologists are telling you-- random mutation coupled with natural selection is a nice simple way to convey the concept. And the key to understanding further has nothing to do with the word random or synonyms thereof and everything to do with understanding how natural selection builds complexity incrementally by picking that which sticks around to reproduce giving their DNA strands a chance to stick around some more (and possibly be built upon!). Your description muddies the understanding of natural selectin--the key concept to understanding evolution.

If the goal is actually to understand the non-random aspects of evolution and/or why biologists think that the way you are describing things is more confusing than clarifying--then why would it possibly matter if I thought someone was a creationist. If you are describing things unclearly and truly want an answer to your question, then you have been given that. If you are muddying definitions in the same way creationists do and/or fostering a common misunderstanding about evolution--wouldn't you want to know so you can change it? If someone said I sounded like a creationist, I would be very interested in finding out how. If I asked about the non-random aspects of evolution I would be very keen on understanding them. If I was told that creationists have a poor understanding of natural selection such that "intelligent design" looks on par with "it happened by chance", I'd want to do everything in my power to destinguish what scientists actually mean, because it turns out it makes a lot more sense than "it juts happened by chance" and tons more sense than an "intelligent designer". Moreover, it's really easy to understand and makes an intelligent designer look superfluous.

The misunderstanding is not on the part of biologists. It's on your inability to understand how your words and words just like yours are used to make sure people don't understand natural selection. Evolution is a fact a theory, and a principle...just like gravity. Everyone should be able to understand it and extrapolate it's meaning to other fields. Everyone should have the opportunity to understand how complexity arises from randomness via selection. All the scientists who understand evolution are telling you that your description of natural selection and evolution itself does not convey valuable information about the process--namely the selection process...which it is more clearly described as the "opposite of chance"...or as whitey describes it or as Berkeley describes it. But not as you describe it. You are missing the forest for the trees.

 

[articulett]

forgive me but surely there are no "physical forces that act upon DNA" by natural selection as such . if there are, they are most likely non-reproductive, and discontinued. mutation of DNA is usually provided by just breeding.



I personally use the term "non-random" as "not particular to any individual". Just to clarify.

I also think that that understanding non-random systems is essential to know anything worth while about the seive. It defines its essential function dosn't it?
Maybe your "non-random" and my "non-random" are different....but not random.....

Yes, but everything in the environment acts upon organisms such that it determines whether the DNA is passed on or not. The environment and every force acting upon organisms in the environment preferentially allows the survival and successful reproduction of some gene vectors (organisms) but not most. The parts of the genome that contributed to being selected are thus preferentially passed on (the part of the sperm that contributed to it being the first to fertilize the egg in the environment where others did not have such "success" is passed on into your genome. By acting upon the vectors of the DNA (which is all organisms), there is a direct relationship between the selection forces and the DNA that is passed on. Selection of all sorts means that there is preferential survival and reproductive success in some organisms over others.

As for the word random. I only use it for mutation, recombination, and other changes in the genome even though this is not truly random in the strictest sense of the word. People don't get stuck on the word random and haphazard (the common definition) is "good enough" for that part of the equation. This thread is all about the ambiguity of the word random and stochastic and misunderstanding thereof...which is why I don't like it. I don't think understanding anything about statistics or randomness is essential or necessary for understanding natural selection...it tends to make it harder for people to grasp the incremental nature of the building of complexity.

Creationist like to pretend there are two solutions--evolution which they mischaracterize as "random chance" and Top down purposeful design. But once someone understands natural selection--that is...bottom up design, it is makes the top down design model unnecessary and the random chance much more than the murky description they presumed it was. In the sieve example I would say that what remains in the sieve and what falls through the sieve are piles that did not accumulate by random chance--but by selection.

 

[articulett]

One of the topics that has been beaten to death on this thread is that there are certain characteristics of the evolutionary process that are best understood by using random models. That's why all those people publishing the papers mijo has been citing have used stochastic models, including stochastic selection models, too. Are they doing something wrong? I don't think so.

Moreover, what I was talking about was what I called the "knee jerk hostility" to the term. This thread isn't just talking about which term is better. This thread has dealt with whether or not people who prefer the term "random" are actually creationists.

Mijo asked a simple question. What evidence is there that evolution is non-random? It has a simple answer. There is none. You could stop there. Another option would be to go on and say evolution is a random process, but like many other random processes, it has certain very predictable results. If you were really, really, interested in the topic, you could go on and say that some of those results are so predictable that even calling the process "random" is somewhat misleading.

Instead of that, mijo and everyone who agrees with him has been the target of negative commentary, and several have been questioned about whether they were creationists. I find that level of hostility toward a choice of terms to be an interesting phenomenon.

I'd say the answer is--there is none that mijo and meadmaker will accept. To biologists--natural selection is the answer--or at least it misses it's power and obfuscates understanding to describe it as a "stochastic process" or in terms of the random components involved in it. Your definition makes all processes random processes if they contain any element of randomness. What process doesn't? Hence it's useless for conveying understanding...particularly the incremental nature of natural selection.

And the commentary I (and only I) have directed at you is because of this. This is exactly what Behe is doing. He will not admit that this explanation muddies the understanding of natural selection nor does he provide any clearer explanation--because his goal IS to muddy the understanding of natural selection. Mijo's question is directly related to creationist misunderstanding #4 which characterizes evolution as complexity via chance.
Multiple sources including the top in the field that deal with this issue again and again and deal with the ways understanding is made difficult by very similar muddying of the defintion again and again have answered this question.
Most feel that it is misleading at best to sum up natural selection as a random process. There is lots of evidence regarding the non-random aspects of evolution...but none that you will accept. There is lots of evidence saying that it's ridiculous to characterize natural selection under the term "random" or "non random" or in terms of stochastic processes vs. determinism...but none that you will accept. If that argument is identical to those made by creationists--AND you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that muddying the understanding of natural selection IS a goal of creationist--then what is left to distinguish you from a creationist? Everybody else seems to be able to understand why or how it is misleading to sum up natural selection as a random process or stochastic process...how it confuses rather than clarifies and leaves out the details about cumulative successes sticking around to build complexity. It misses it entirely.

Yes...that is what creationist do--they ask a load question such as "what is the evidence for evolution being non random" or "how do scientists explain the discontinuity in the fossil record" and then they refuse all answers and conclude just as you have "there is no evidence for evolution being non-random" and "scientists have no explanation for discontinuity in the fossil record". Why ask the question if you already "know the answer. I maintain it is to satisfy themselves that these creationist claims are correct.

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Even if semantically they can be described as "not false"--that doesn't make them true or meaningful nor useful in conveying the facts. And they ARE used to muddy understanding of evolution, a fairly simple concept. I'd say that most people who actually understand evolution or who hope to understand it, find the talk origins answer a good answer to Mijo's question. I imagine that most people who understand evolution do not come to the conclusion that you and mijo have--"there is no evidence that evolution is non-random". But I bet Behe does. Even your fellow randomites are not saying that. They are acknowledging that the way you are saying it is unclear--it doesn't do anything to clarify the understanding of natural selection--the key concept for understanding evolution--"design" from the bottom up--complexity accruing incrementally over time.

I don't think that calling people a creationist has ever hurt anyone's understanding of evolution. It has made "intelligent design proponents" very careful in making sure they are not labeled "creationists." They want to be taken seriously as scientists while obfuscating rather than clarifying. But I doubt very seriously it has made one non-creationist unable to get an answer to a question he was actually curious about. I don't care whose feelings are hurt, I care about people being able to understand evolution. The "random" is easy. The selection through time is the tougher part. It's worth bruised feelings if the result is a greater depth of understanding isn't it? Evolution isn't an "argument"; it's a fact. It's valuable to be able to understand it, and to clearly convey that understanding to others.

And mijo's papers are not saying what he is saying nor are they about the "non-random" aspects of evolution (his question) nor are they used by anyone teaching evolution such as Dawkins who has successfully unlocked the mystery for many. Has mijo? Has Behe? Who cares if semantically on some level it's meaningful. The facts about evolution are the same for everybody. Ambiguity in language isn't helpful for understanding it... I don't know if the papers are doing something wrong--but they aren't answering his question nor are they saying what he is saying.

The "hostility" isn't hostility--it's exasperation...someone asked a question and refused all answers--it's an a common creationist tactic. You asked for evidence that this was a creationist tactic, and you refused all evidence provided. The exasperation is due to your and mijos complete lack of understanding as to how your characterization of evolution is more obfuscating than explanatory--especially when it comes to natural selection--and your pretense that it's about the word "random" rather than the lack of clarity in your explanations and refusal to accept any evidence that directly answers the question in the OP. What is the evidence for evolution being random. Answer: To Mijo and Meadmaker (and only them at this point)--there is none. To everyone else it's a bizarre-ish question and natural selection is not done justice by applying those words to the process.
Having random components does not make a process random--otherwise all "processes" are essentially random or "stochastic". Even if so, what the hell does that tell you about the NON RANDOM parts of evolution?

 

[articulett]

I'm not sure that's true. I think Dawkins does know that. I think he has a visceral dislike of the term "random" when applied to his life's work and something he feels strongly about.

He has a visceral dislike of those who aim to obfuscate rather than clarify because they assume they understand his position when they do not.

 

[articulett]

And meadmaker, I don't think you are a creationist (not that it matters)--you just a have an ego problem and inability to admit your mistakes or shades of grey. As for mijo, his argument is identical to creationist arguments. His asking of a question that was meant to imply an answer rather than gain understanding is also identical to creationist techniques. It's on par with the deceptive question asked of Dawkins "how does info. get added to the genome" and then taking his failure to answer right away as an implication that he didn't have an answer. It's just a bad question and implies ignorance and a creationist agenda in it's very wording. Add what? Base pairs? DNA? Genes? promoter regions? function? new folding of proteins? Phenotypic traits? More is not necessarily better. And it's not a question you can answer simply without clarification. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have an answer. The question is bad--like demanding an answer to how far it is to the end of the earth and then ridiculing the silence that followed the question and implying that the questioner stumped the great scientists.

That is what mijos questions are like. Always. And that is what his implications are like... always. His need to use the term fitness while failing to understand how that term is used, if at all, in regard to genomes...his need to find randomness in or somehow find a way to define evolution as random no matter how obfuscating it is or how it can be misconstrued or how it leaves out the way complexity accrues...

There is NO evidence that mijo or meadmaker will accept that equates any part of evolution with "non-randomness" That doesn't change a thing about evolution. It just means you stay ignorant of the answer to the question.

 

[CapelDodger]

The seive does not appear have a randomness towards any particular individual, as it acts on all the individuals passing through it, one by one, individually...... It is the individuals that randomly can or cannot pass through it.

I would say "do or do not pass through". Cannot, of course, consigns individuals to the "do not" throng, but "can" doesn't guarantee anything. Stroke of lightning, falling rock or branch, eruption, wrong place at a bad time, yadda-yadda. Cannot is the first filter, luck is the second.

Good post .

 

[Schneibster]

I've said this before, articulett, but I'll limp up and try once more.

From the point of view of understanding the beauty of the process, your arguments have merit. However, from the point of view of someone with a physical science or engineering background, the simple question, "where do new characteristics come from," is answered simply, "from random mutation." Idiot creationists trying to trump that up into evilution being "random" get anything from a blank stare ("does this idiot really not know that (transistors/steam engines/air-fuel combustion/name some piece of complicated engineering) is based on randomness?") to being called out as not believing in said piece of complicated engineering because they're too stupid to know what "random" means.

I held this point of view until Dawkins showed me better, for which I am in his debt; but it made no difference to my acceptance of evolution as the overwhelmingly most likely explanation of the biological complexity of our world, and no difference to my opinion that that complexity has arisen due to the random nature of mutations. That such complexity has structure is a whole other argument, from the perspective of a physical sciences or engineering major. So pardon me, but I think you've missed just as much of mijo's point of view as he has missed of yours.