What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[mijopaalmc]

So what is fitness, articulett?

And what is selection?

 

[articulett]

No. The order arises merely from the elementary constituents and the probability distribution function of their interactions.

Now, the environment doesn't matter to this behavior. Nothing matters but that there be something that can act as nodes, and something that can act as edges. As long as this is true, this is the behavior you will see. It's not yet been proven ab initio, but empirically, Kaufmann has done many experiments of this type, and the behavior is always seen, on average. And the larger the number of nodes involved, the more closely the system adheres to this behavior.

So how does this fit with biological evolution? Well, first, let's consider that if there were no environmental considerations, then not all genomes would be viable. Some genetic changes would interfere with an organism's ability to simply live. For example, if the genes that create the heart of a vertebrate during ontogeny are damaged, the animal will not live in any reasonably likely environment; or if the genes that allow the creation of the machinery of transcription are damaged, the embryo will never even get started. These types of mutations are universally fatal; it doesn't matter what the environment is. The question here is, is this a viable organism? Can it simply live? And all that complexity comes simply from the genes. It would not matter whether there was an environment or not; given sufficient time, we would see all viable lifeforms capable of procreating, if there were no environment. The processes of mutation and recombination would guarantee it.

.

This is problematic...I understand what you are saying in regards to things like penny flipping, where environment isn't really important. But everything about genomes coevolves with the environment...you cannot get away from environmental influence--the ducks genitals were preferentially selected for the environment they found themselves in. Humans evolve to be molded by their environment--to lean language, for example, but the language we learn is an entirely environmental. The capacity for language is genetic, but the language we learn or our failure to learn language is entirely dependent on the environment. Everything about DNA in living organisms has been assimilated due to the environment... even what goes on in the uterus is part of the environment. You can't really separate them. We can say, since you carry this recessive trait "x", each conceptus will have a 1 in 4 chance of having X.

A galaxy is a spiral--but that isn't random, nor did it come about randomly. Blood is red, but that has little to do with fitness and everything to do with the physical properties of blood and light waves reflecting upon blood. I understand Brownian motion and gravity and the way you learn about the principles in a vacuum, and how they aren't necessarily accurate for real life scenarios. A geneticist will look at traits and genomes and ask why they occurred, what is their prevalence, why are they widespread, what advantage did it confer to whom. I understand Punnet squares and probabilities, and even how random processes can convey order like Vegas house odds convey wealth. The larger the sample size the more predictable the "order". So I really do understand what you are saying.

But evolution does not happen in a vaccum...it requires environmental inputs of some sort. Even gravity is an environmental impact, and it's interesting to see what spiders do in atmospheres without gravity due to magnetism...they evolved to be on a planet with gravity...everything on this planet evolved from species that were successfully able to live and reproduce on this planet during the time and environment in which they lived. Without some "force in the environment"--there can be no order. You might not factor in the force because it's confusing,but in your button example, something is connecting the buttons and the environment (including gravity) still affects the results. Moreover, buttons don't die and they don't reproduce so the environmental aspects might not be important to understanding button dropping--but they are of essence in understanding evolution.

Because calling evolution a random process is nearly identical to the creationist strawman, I think you ought to cut us some slack in our using of the terminology. For better or worse, we think of selection as that which brings order to the randomness. This seems to work for most people. Maybe people need to understand all the technicalities of the word random, but until you guys come up with a better way to say it, I will use the the definition of random supplied by my science dictionary, talk origins, etc. should someone ever asks me if I think we are all here by chance. Chance and Random and stochastic just don't convey convey the "emerging complexity" or "order" that results from randomness very well...and I am still quite positive that mijo is not understanding the word as you are.

But my conclusion is correct isn't it?--no matter what your definition for "random" the evidence for the evolution of this thread being random or non-random is on par with the evidence of evolution in general being random or not.

To me, if you feel there is no evidence for evolution being non-random then there is no evidence that the evolution of anything is non-random--which makes the terminology so useless because it renders everything "random" if looked at from the right way. I mean, what can't be described by a probability distribution? I can't help it--I am like the authors at talk origins...to me this sounds like a poor way to describe natural selection and indicates a lack of understanding regarding the "sticking' factor. It just sounds like you are confusing the basic principle with tangential word games.

I just don't think any biologist would answer the question in the OP as "there is none". Not because they are wrong or liars or unclear on what random means--but because describing natural selection as random fails to convey the "force" that it is. I can't imagine a biology professor conveying any information if he were to say, "there is no evidence that the evolution of duck genitalia is non-random." Or "the evolution of duck genitalia is 'random'". To me, these statements imply something that is confusing and they say nothing that clarifies. I can't imagine people drawing any sorts of understanding from these statements. It's not to say they are "wrong"--they are just too meaningless to be of value. Mutations are random--what survives and gets passed on, is not.

 

[articulett]

So what is fitness, articulett?

Fitness in genetics refers to the ability to get your information copied and passed on.

Fit computer viruses spread rapidly...fit human viruses do too...fitness in a genome is anything that gave an organism a survival or reproductive advantage in the game of life. The sperm that made you might not have been the fittest by any human definition...but it was fit enough to do the job and it becomes the fittest of the bunch by being the one that passed on the information. Many couldn't have gotten there or successfully fertilized an egg or grown a healthy embryo...many others could--but didn't--spermatozoa production has long been subject to natural selection--consequently men make way more than ever needed. Oftentimes being the fittest means producing the most wastage in the "hopes" that one will succeed.

Selection is anything which removes some genomes (information) from the gene pool and not others and/or something which gives one organism a reproductive edge. Any "sieve" or elimination round that culls from the gene pool is selecting survivors and eliminating competitors. Or in the case of this thread, selection is anything which furthers the passing on of information...anything that keeps the thread going is being "selected"--whether it's bumping it up, or writing something provocative, or sharing information, or pushing peoples' buttons or popping up number 1 on google--if it furthers the "survival" and building upon of this thread by others than it furthers the evolution of this thread.

 

[articulett]

yes it is the environment that makes the selection, but this is the random aspect of the selection.


So, given all the conditions on earth 8-million (or so) years ago Humanity and Chimps were inevitable?

Well yeah...although it's untestable. If you had an identical world with all conditions identical and the same sperm fertilizing the same egg for the same reasons then yes--I suspect you'd get identical results. But that doesn't mean anyone could have predicted it. If the tiniest aspect of the environment was the tiniest bit different, you could have no life at all on this planet.

And I agree that there are random aspects in the selection process but that doesn't make selection itself a random process. To do so means that every process that has any kind of randomness is a random process--that includes life itself, food processing, word processing, respiration, etc. Evolution is as random or as non-random as the evolution of this thread no matter what definition of random you want to use. The evolution of anything is as random or non-random as evolution itself no matter what definition you use. So, I personally, would not use that word to describe something that was "related to or could be described by a probability chart"--because what can't be??

 

[Schneibster]

This is problematic...I understand what you are saying in regards to things like penny flipping, where environment isn't really important.

Everything that happens to DNA is ruled by quantum mechanics. There is, therefore, no essential difference between genetics and penny flipping. And by the way, the environment is enormously important in penny flipping; for example, try flipping pennies in molasses.

But everything about genomes coevolves with the environment...

No, it doesn't. Only the mutations coevolve with the environment; without mutations, no change will occur.

you cannot get away from environmental influence--the ducks genitals were preferentially selected for the environment they found themselves in. Humans evolve to be molded by their environment--to lean language, for example, but the language we learn is an entirely environmental. The capacity for language is genetic, but the language we learn or our failure to learn language is entirely dependent on the environment. Everything about DNA in living organisms has been assimilated due to the environment... even what goes on in the uterus is part of the environment. You can't really separate them. We can say, since you carry this recessive trait "x", each conceptus will have a 1 in 4 chance of having X.

You can only make statements like this if you ignore the underlying character of the changes involved. If there were no genetic changes, then ducks' penises would not change, no matter what the selection pressure, and ducks would become extinct.

A galaxy is a spiral--but that isn't random, nor did it come about randomly.

Actually, yes, it is, and yes, it did. What it is not is it is not disorderly.

But evolution does not happen in a vaccum...it requires environmental inputs of some sort.

No, it doesn't. It does to create what we have in the real world, in the time it's taken to happen- but unconstrained by the environment, but still subject to mutation, genes would still evolve- just not the way they have here, and without selection pressure, though the variety of genomes would be greater, it would also take enormously longer to create the complexity we see in the real world. Nevertheless, given random mutation, eventually every genotype we see in the real world would be seen without selection pressures, if you waited long enough.

Even gravity is an environmental impact, and it's interesting to see what spiders do in atmospheres without gravity due to magnetism...they evolved to be on a planet with gravity...everything on this planet evolved from species that were successfully able to live and reproduce on this planet during the time and environment in which they lived. Without some "force in the environment"--there can be no order. You might not factor in the force because it's confusing,but in your button example, something is connecting the buttons and the environment (including gravity) still affects the results. Moreover, buttons don't die and they don't reproduce so the environmental aspects might not be important to understanding button dropping--but they are of essence in understanding evolution.

You didn't get the point.

Because calling evolution a random process is nearly identical to the creationist strawman, I think you ought to cut us some slack in our using of the terminology.

I always did- but the problem is, every time you talk to a new person who comes to this conversation from a physical science background, you're going to have to explain all of this all over again. That's what comes of using "random" the wrong way. If you're willing to do that, and have essentially this same argument with every single one of them, be my guest.

I just can't do this anymore. I'm getting frustrated. I'm going to walk away again; perhaps I'll come back later.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think the point you're missing, articulett, is that, even though selection may be non-random (and I don't think it is), there has been much success modeling the whole process of evolution as a stochastic process. This means that, despite the alleged non-random elements, evolution is to date better modeled as a stochastic process, which implies both that evolution is a stochastic process and that random components a random process make.

 

[Meadmaker]

I know the definition you are using: Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution

And I am telling you...that if you are using this definition, then there appears to be no evidence for evolution being non-random per your definition.

Well I'm glad we cleared that up. Let it be known that everyone agrees that by mijo's definition, which definition is shared by a lot of different people including me, evolution is random. Let there be no more dispute about that.


So, a few questions remain. Is it a good thing to use that definition in describing evolution? Does it teach us anything? How should we react when someone says it? Is it necessary in describing evolution?


One thing we want to do in science is to explain the world around us. There's a strange element about "explain". It can mean so many different things to different people. Take the laws of motion as an example. Most of us at some point heard of Newton's laws of motion. I'll repeat them. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Those laws sum up how and why things move, and they laid the foundation for modern science and engineering. However, those were Newton's starting point, not the ending point. If Newton had ended there, we probably wouldn't call them Newton's laws of motion, because they wouldn't do very much for us. You can teach a lot to a fifth grader (when I first recall hearing them) using those sorts of verbal descriptions, but to be really useful, you have to ditch the verbage and go to the mathematical descriptions. F=ma, and mv(0)=mv(1) (the law of conservation of momentum, crudely expressed using just a keyboard with no formatting).

With that, you can do quite a bit more. Not only can you tell that an artillery shell will go toward the enemy, you can predict exactly where it will land.* Now that's useful.

Newton's laws contain no random components. In very advanced modelling, it is often necessary to include random components in models governed by the laws of motion, in order to account for uncertainties in position, mass, disturbances (e.g. wind) but you can do a great deal without randomness.

Is the same true of evolution? I doubt it. To really be said to "explain" the world, I think some sort of modelling or simulation that duplicates aspects of the real world will be necessary. We're just beginning to do that with evolution. There are an awful lot of stochastic models out there, and I don't think that's coincidence. I said earlier, and I will repeat it, that mathematical models of evolution will include random elements. Furthermore, I think they will include randomness both with respect to mutation, recombination, and selection.

Of course, that remains to be seen, because right now the state of the art of evolutionary modelling is very weak. Darwin gave us a verbal description of the laws of evolution, but unlike Newton, neither he nor his successors have yet been able to provide the mathematical underpinnings of the theory. I believe that when that happens, the models will include randomness.

So, to summarize, any process can be thought of as random, but there are many, many, processes that can be usefully modelled without randomness. I suspect that evolution is not one of them. I suspect that when those Nobel Prizes are given out for demonstrating how evolution really happens, they will be given to people who studied probability theory, and utilized what they learned.

ETA:*Actually, you can only predict approximately where it lands. With advanced modelling, you can give a probabiltiy distribution for where it will land. However, even without that probability stuff, you can knock down his castle walls, which is close enough.

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob
yes it is the environment that makes the selection, but this is the random aspect of the selection.


So, given all the conditions on earth 8-million (or so) years ago Humanity and Chimps were inevitable?

Well yeah...although it's untestable. If you had an identical world with all conditions identical and the same sperm fertilizing the same egg for the same reasons then yes--I suspect you'd get identical results. But that doesn't mean anyone could have predicted it. If the tiniest aspect of the environment was the tiniest bit different, you could have no life at all on this planet.

And I agree that there are random aspects in the selection process but that doesn't make selection itself a random process. To do so means that every process that has any kind of randomness is a random process--that includes life itself, food processing, word processing, respiration, etc. Evolution is as random or as non-random as the evolution of this thread no matter what definition of random you want to use. The evolution of anything is as random or non-random as evolution itself no matter what definition you use. So, I personally, would not use that word to describe something that was "related to or could be described by a probability chart"--because what can't be??

This is where we disagree,

Because there was nothing inevitable about the subsequent survival of any of the ancestors of humanity. A slight subsequent random alteration in the environment (e.g. weather, random mutation in some predator's offspring etc.) could have been enough for one of those branches not to be fillefd by what are now known as chimps or humans. The niche might get filled, but it would not be inevitable, and the final form of the occupying species is not predetermined

ETA:
Humanity almost became extinct 70k years ago. A slight alteration there could have rendered us extinct...

Jim

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I just dealt out a deck of cards. The 3rd, 22nd, 44th and 50th cards were all Aces. What are the chances of that!

That's how back-to-front the "Was humanity inevitable X million years ago?" question is. As the event has already happened it is pointless to speculate how unlikely it was, or how many things had to happen just right to make it possible.

<snip>
No, it doesn't. It does to create what we have in the real world, in the time it's taken to happen- but unconstrained by the environment, but still subject to mutation, genes would still evolve- just not the way they have here, and without selection pressure, though the variety of genomes would be greater, it would also take enormously longer to create the complexity we see in the real world. Nevertheless, given random mutation, eventually every genotype we see in the real world would be seen without selection pressures, if you waited long enough.

It would have been more accurate to say "genes would still exist", since randomly stringing together molecules (or sets thereof) is closer to some ideas about abiogenesis than evolution. With no selection function or other rules you just get longer and longer strings. So what? The chance of a particular string becomes vanishingly small.

<snip>
Is the same true of evolution? I doubt it. To really be said to "explain" the world, I think some sort of modelling or simulation that duplicates aspects of the real world will be necessary. We're just beginning to do that with evolution. There are an awful lot of stochastic models out there, and I don't think that's coincidence. I said earlier, and I will repeat it, that mathematical models of evolution will include random elements. Furthermore, I think they will include randomness both with respect to mutation, recombination, and selection.

The randomness of the selection will be less than the randomness of the mutation or recombination else the result would be an increase in population variance. That will not model the trend in evolution, which tends to reduce variance.

 

[Schneibster]

I'm not sure you understand what I mean. I'm not claiming that philosophy of science is science per se; I am noting the phenomenon scientists only seem to use the philosophy (even then on the sly) when it benefits them in arguing against pseudoescience or non-science. This is not in any way unique to scientists but I think that it would do scientists better in the intellectual honesty department if they considered all the implications that the philosophy of science has for their various disciplines rather than using it just when it benefits them.

I'm going to go back and look at what you said again, but I have to tell you that my impression was that you were confusing use of the scientific method with use of the philosophy of science. Let's see:

This has always been one of my pet peeves: when scientists say that "philosophy of science is not science" and then turn around and say that the latest pseudoscience isn't science because it has no observational evidence (i.e., an appeal to empiricism), it makes an assumption of the existence of the supernatural (i.e., an appeal to naturalism), and it isn't falsifiable (e.g., an appeal to the principle of falsifiability first described by philosopher of science Karl Popper).

OK, let's review these with regard to the scientific method:
1. "it has no observational evidence"
In the scientific method, hypotheses are created to explain otherwise unexplained evidence. In the scientific method, further observations are made of previously unobserved phenomena in the effort to either substantiate or deny a hypothesis. The absence of any observational evidence, therefore, renders a hypothesis unscientific. This is not a matter of philosophy.
2. "it makes an assumption of the existence of the supernatural"
In the scientific method, a hypothesis is created to explain observed evidence, and searches for further evidence to substantiate or deny the hypothesis. Supernatural phenomena are by definition unobservable; therefore, they can neither be observed nor measured, and cannot serve to either confirm or deny a hypothesis, nor are they subject to the creation of hypotheses to explain them. This is not a matter of philosophy.
3. "it isn't falsifiable"
In the scientific method, a hypothesis must both explain observed phenomena, and be tested by looking for other previously unobserved phenomena that it predicts. In the absence of any observable phenomena for it to explain or predict, it is not a hypothesis, by definition, and without a hypothesis, the scientific method is useless. This is not a matter of philosophy.

Your argument (hypothesis) is not substantiated (it does not explain otherwise unexplained phenomena, and it both does not predict things that are seen, and predicts things that are not seen). I therefore disagree on what I feel are good grounds.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Schneibster-

I think you're missing my point. I am not claiming that philosophy of science is science. I am claiming that the dismissing the evaluation of science by the philosophy of science by saying "the philosophy isn't science" is intellectually dishonest because the grounds on science is demarcated from other realms of knowledge are purely philosophical.

Now this would be a largely empty argument if scientists just dismissed certain ideas as pseudoscience without explanation, but scientists often provide some rather lengthy explanations as to why a certain field is pseudoscience justifying their critiques of that field with the aforementioned appeals to empiricism, naturalism, and falsificationism. If they are going to use such argument to demarcate science, it would do them well to acknowledge that such demarcation rests on the fundamental philosophical assumptions of science.

ETA: After rereading what I have written, I see why you thought that I was arguing that the philosophy of science is science. My poorly expressed frustration was about scientists who dismiss philosophy of science when it doesn't back up their views of their field but then rely heavily on it when it is important to demarcate science from pseudoscience and non-science.

 

[jimbob]

I just dealt out a deck of cards. The 3rd, 22nd, 44th and 50th cards were all Aces. What are the chances of that!

That's how back-to-front the "Was humanity inevitable X million years ago?" question is. As the event has already happened it is pointless to speculate how unlikely it was, or how many things had to happen just right to make it possible.

True, but was my point clear about this thought experiment?

I was trying to put forward my view that the selection is truely random, and the precice course of evolution is truely random (probabilistic) and not pseudorandom, unlike the excel random number generator, for example...


Many individuals that would otherwise breed are just unlucky, due to random events. This affects the selection, starting from which sperm actually fertilises the egg in the first place.

Add in random behaviour of predators, then acts of Zeus, and one can only make short-term predictionsabout the course of evolution of any particular species descendants, other than to say it is highly likely that most will not reproduce sucessful offspring.

The randomness of the selection will be less than the randomness of the mutation or recombination else the result would be an increase in population variance. That will not model the trend in evolution, which tends to reduce variance.

For the purpose of this thread are you considering meteorites, and volcanoes as random, or pseudorandom, or something else?


"That will not model the trend in evolution, which tends to reduce variance."

Speciation?

The sum total distributions of the genomes of every organism would show multiple distributions, (could one treat each DNA letter as part of a base4 number?- I am more than a bit unsure of this). Two separate sepcies would show different means and standard deviations.... arrgh. I hope that you can follow this as I am thinking after typing, but not deleting...

True this would be less than if every mutation survived and reproduces, which would be truely disordered.

Jim

 

[Schneibster]

Schneibster-

I think you're missing my point. I am not claiming that philosophy of science is science. I am claiming that the dismissing the evaluation of science by the philosophy of science by saying "the philosophy isn't science" is intellectually dishonest because the grounds on science is demarcated from other realms of knowledge are purely philosophical.

And I think you're missing mine: I'm not claiming you are claiming that the philosophy of science is science; I'm claiming that you're claiming that scientists are turning to the philosophy of science to refute non-science, and that you are wrong. And proving both claims, as far as I can tell.

I am not addressing whether using the phrase, "the philosophy of science is not science" is intellectually dishonest in this context. I leave that to the person accused of intellectual dishonesty, if it is not clear using my assertions as premises.

I also do not agree that the demarcation between science and non-science (however fuzzy it may be) is a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of method; specifically, the scientific method. And to the extent that this is true, it is also true that dismissing the evaluation of science by the philosophy of science as non-scientific is also true. I am willing to endeavor to support the premise that it is based on the scientific method rather than appeal to the philosophy of science further if what I have written so far is unconvincing in that regard.

Now this would be a largely empty argument if scientists just dismissed certain ideas as pseudoscience without explanation, but scientists often provide some rather lengthy explanations as to why a certain field is pseudoscience justifying their critiques of that field with the aforementioned appeals to empiricism, naturalism, and falsificationism. If they are going to use such argument to demarcate science, it would do them well to acknowledge that such demarcation rests on the fundamental philosophical assumptions of science.

I have presented compelling evidence to support the contention that scientists are in fact not using the philosophy of science in this manner. You have not answered it, but merely reasserted your original premises. This appears to be because you have not understood the character of my argument, but I now need you to acknowledge that this is the case, whether you then proceed to criticize my argument or not. This will prevent the misunderstanding that you have avoided addressing my arguments, which could now be construed to be the case; I of course am not asserting it, merely noting that a reasonable person could interpret it that way.

ETA: After rereading what I have written, I see why you thought that I was arguing that the philosophy of science is science. My poorly expressed frustration was about scientists who dismiss philosophy of science when it doesn't back up their views of their field but then rely heavily on it when it is important to demarcate science from pseudoscience and non-science.

And again, I tell you, I am saying they do not do so, and have presented evidence to support that assertion. This tends to support my contention that you have not understood the point of my statements.

 

[Walter Wayne]

The randomness of the selection will be less than the randomness of the mutation or recombination else the result would be an increase in population variance. That will not model the trend in evolution, which tends to reduce variance.

A random process that reduces variance is best modeled as a random process that reduces variances.

If each year, we pick, deterministicly, one person who died childless, and somehow recover their genome (assuming we had some technology to do so) and pass it on, we would increase the variance in the population through a determistic method.

If each year we selected one person in the population to die, using a random number generator to do so, we would reduce the variance in the population through a random method.

Increased variance should not be confused with random, and reduced variance should not be confused with non-random. You can't equate one with the other.

Walt

 

[mijopaalmc]

Schneibster-

How do requirements of empirical evidence, naturalistic explanations, and falsifiable statements differ from assumptions of empiricism, naturalism, and flasificationism?

Do you think it is a coincidence that science only started to distinguish itself from philosophy only after Berkeley, Hume, and Locke laid down the principles of Empiricism in the 19th century?

 

[Schneibster]

Schneibster-

How do requirements of empirical evidence, naturalistic explanations, and falsifiable statements differ from assumptions of empiricism, naturalism, and flasificationism?

In that the requirements were not developed to conform to these philosophical positions; instead, the philosophy was developed to describe the requirements. By asserting that scientists are using these philosophical arguments, you are imputing the second, when in fact the first is provably the case both in terms of how the philosophy was developed and in how science is taught.

 

[articulett]

I don't think I'm going to participate in this threads evolution anymore, because I actually understand the evidence for evolution being non-random as described by Dawkins, Berkeley, and Talk Origins--that is, I would say selection is that which hones the randomness into an "ordered" system or process.

I think I have absorbed about all the definitions of random I care to absorb enough to understand this fact. If there is no evidence of for this thread being non-random per whatever definition you are using...then there is no evidence for the evolution of anything including the evolution of life being non-random.

To me, this makes the word and the opening question useless or a way to obfuscate rather that clarify (which to me all of mijo's posts do for me...) If there is no evidence for the evolution of anything being non-random--then there is nothing, as far as I can tell, which distinguishes this randomness from the tornado in a junkyard analogy...after all, that can be described by a probability distribution as well. If non random just refers to as "not being related to or described by a probability distribution" then I understand quite well why, despite Mijo's claims, there is nothing in the current literature written by the top in their field describing natural selection as such. It just seems uninformative at best. I can name the top evolutionary biologists and I don't think anyone would define natural selection with such ambiguous wording.

BTW, Mijo--where are those quotes of Pennock you mentioned-- the ones that gave such a blow to Behe, and can you give one notable biologist or evolutionist who describes natural selection as a stochastic process or that sums up natural selection as random?

And Jim-bob, you described a scenario that was not identical...that had a different input to conclude that everything would be different. I agree. But IDENTICAL inputs, would produce identical results--but no human would be able to even begin to understand the myriad of physical inputs. Altering the physical laws just slightly so someone steps on a thorn or whatever would and could change everything that follows that chain...but that would mean that the inputs were no longer identical.

Thanks for the patience and explanations Schneibster...I understand more why people might insist that evolution is random--but I think that using such words confuses far more than it clarifies--to say that the evolution of ducks genitalia is random does nothing to illustrate the selection process...the way some female duck can have a little deformity that gives her an advantage in selecting and the way male ducks can have a matching alteration that suddenly gives him an advantage and so on. The deformities or alterations appear randomly--but the way they become successful is not--these "deformities" have a direct impact on which genes are selected to appear in the next generation. This is not a random impact...the next generation is determined in it's entirety as to who passed on genes in this generation. Even if a case could be made to call this random, I certainly never would--not if I wanted to convey information and not if someone asked me what the non-random aspects of evolution are. And I can't imagine any biologist doing so. Your definitions leave this very important part of evolution out. It makes the evolution of everything random if anything random is involved. And so the evolution of technology is random, the evolution of this thread is random, and even artificial selection is random.

If the randomites think it clarifies anything to say that evolution is random the least they can do is to distinguish their "random" from the tornado in the junkyard random should anyone desire to know the "non-random" aspects of evolution, don't you think? But as far as I can tell, no randomite provides a definition that does that while complaining about the biologists use of the word random or chance or attempts at avoiding ambiguity by staying away from those words (meadmaker).

Calling the evolution of this thread random doesn't convey how the order came to this thread. Biologists desire very much to convey how the order comes from the "random" mutations and recombinations...it's pretty easy to understand-- I don't think you could convey the evolution of this thread (or anything else successfully) using statistics, "random", "stochastic", and so forth--at least not to most people. When I teach kids about evolution, I can readily use technology as an example...no single computer evolves, but computers in general evolve based on what came before...what "works"...the qwerty keyboard isn't the fastest and other countries don't use English letters--but they do online...because the internet started in the US and web addresses must be typed with our alphabet...our keyboard grew from typewriter keyboards which were designed to be slow because otherwise the keys would stick--and so we have remnants of the past in our current technology... And serendipity and randomness of all sorts plays a role in every invention we take for granted today. Microwave ovens are based on the accidental discovery of melting chocolate near an emitter of such waves but I wouldn't say microwaves evolved randomly...or that there is no evidence that microwaves evolved non-randomly. Because it's uninformative at best; misleading at worst.

Sure, if you want to sum that up as random and insist that others do to, be my guest. But it makes the understanding of natural selection sound on par with the tornado in the junkyard analogy...that is, such explanations do nothing to distinguish itself from that. I don't think any biologists are going to be taking you up on your definitions any time soon, Meadmaker, Walter, et. al. You may well understand evolution, but you have trouble conveying that understanding in your use of language. And I don't think Mijo understands natural selection at all--I don't think he can describe the difference between his understanding and the tornado in the junkyard analogy. And that would be the thing that needs to be clarified if anyone was actually interested in understanding the "non-random" aspects of evolution--or if they wanted to understand what Dawkins, the Berkeley Site, and Talk Origins are trying to convey (And actually DO convey very successfully to very many.) Darwin too, btw.

I can and have successfully explained natural selection to people--but I use terms like gradual changes over eons rather than random or the "sticking factor" or many other better descriptors. I, like the other biologists, go out of my way so that there is no confusion between chance aspects that affect selection (which are physical forces and, as such, not truly "random") and the randomness itself (and mutations are actually due to the laws of physics too...and so not truly random)--because on the scale of "randomness"--mutations (and recombinations) are much "more random" in comparison to selection. In this case random roughly means having an equal probability of occurring--but such mutations and recombinations, do not have an equal chance at being beneficial. Some are dead from the get go. A tiny minority confer an advantage to the genome holder...and by advantage I only mean that it makes the organism with the genome more likely to survive and reproduce (copy their DNA into a new generation). When it comes to selection there is hardly an equal probability for all genomes to be selected...each living thing today has a genome that has undergone eons of such selection. To call this process random doesn't do it justice at all from my perspective. It doesn't explain anything. It gives a simplistic false impression and glosses over the details allowing for the tornado in a junkyard analogy. At least it does to me.

I think we agree on the rest. If the evolution of this thread is random per your definition of random and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise--then evolution is also random--the evolution of everything. I can't think of a single process that can't be described in some way by a probability distribution or at least not one that couldn't be "made" to do so. And so that makes all processes random, right? And the evolution of everything random, right? If nothing else, doesn't that at last make it obvious as to why you perceive biologists as being extra careful in using and defining those words? I think this thread illustrates the reason beautifully. Such words tend to make understanding evolution a semantic game rather then the fairly simple explanation it is.

As a genetic counselor, I used probabilities all the time, I never described evolution as random. If someone carries sickle cell trait, it wasn't "random"--it was because they had ancestors that came from Malaria prone regions and having sickle cell trait (heterozygous) conferred an advantage to those ancestors allowing them to be "selected" when others without the mutation died from Malaria. I might use random to explain Down Syndrome, because otherwise mothers are sure it was the pot they smoked in college or something... (I also point out that trisomies happen a lot, but most of them spontaneously abort...having three copies of chromosome 21 is survivable in slightly more than half such conceptions with good prenatal and post natal care.) If nothing else, some things are much closer to true randomness than other things and there is much about evolution as a theory (principle, law, fact, etc.) which makes some aspects far less random than the randomness of mutation...(which is not truly random at all in the strictest definition of this ambiguous word.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

In that the requirements were not developed to conform to these philosophical positions; instead, the philosophy was developed to describe the requirements. By asserting that scientists are using these philosophical arguments, you are imputing the second, when in fact the first is provably the case both in terms of how the philosophy was developed and in how science is taught.

I'm sorry but the history of science says otherwise. Science did not become its own discipline until after British Empiricism was fully delineated in the 18th century. Remember until about the 19th century the valid scientific disciplines (e.g., chemistry and astronomy) were subsumed under the category of "natural philosophy" with disciplines that are now commonly and rightly called pseudoscience (e.g., alchemy and astrology).

 

[articulett]

Mijo,
earlier you had said that Pennock, a philosopher of science, dealt devastating blows to Behe... His blows were more towards Dembski and this notion that if science couldn't explain it via law and "chance" seemed unlikely then design could be inferred.

http://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock_DoverExptRpt.pdf
p.18.

I mean that was a blow to Behe too since they both aim to exploit creationist conundrum #4 (evolution says this all happened by chance like a tornado in a junkyard creating the 747)....

But Behe dealt himself his own worst blows as he always does:

*
Here is Judge Jones' opinion. In a thorough (139 pages) and sweeping decision, the judge finds that ID is not science but disguised sectarian religion, declaring it unconstitutional to teach ID, under whatever pretext, in public school science classes. Here are a few excerpts:
o
“[W]e have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”
o
“We conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.”
o
"An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism”
o
“Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.”

 

[Schneibster]

I'm sorry but the history of science says otherwise. Science did not become its own discipline until after British Empiricism was fully delineated in the 18th century.

The development of the method is not at issue; it is a side issue, merely a supporting argument, and I do not feel the need to defend it considering the strength of the other evidence presented. You have focused upon that side issue and ignored the main issue: whether these things are against the philosophical underpinnings of the method or not is immaterial when the fact is, they are against the method itself. This is, I repeat, not a philosophical issue, but an issue of the non-use of the scientific method. If the scientific method is not used, then it is not science, period.