What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Jorghnassen]

I dismiss it as a scientific pursuit; I dismiss quite a bit of it completely, particularly any of it done in the past century or so, but it has its place (and will no doubt continue to). Perhaps soon the philosophers will wake up and actually contribute something other than deconstructionism or other fantasies about how we're not actually here and nothing is real.

Fair enough. I'll go back to not reading this thread then . But I was right, it did veer off from quibbles over the definitions and usage of the words "random" and "randomness". Maybe with should discuss the evolution and meandering of forum threads from a scientific and philosophical point of view .

 

[articulett]

I think my point was it was taken out of context even from the point of view of the post and the one it was a reply to, which was immediately prior to it. Reading all 28 pages was not necessary to see that, I think.

I dismiss it as a scientific pursuit; I dismiss quite a bit of it completely, particularly any of it done in the past century or so, but it has its place (and will no doubt continue to). Perhaps soon the philosophers will wake up and actually contribute something other than deconstructionism or other fantasies about how we're not actually here and nothing is real.

Well, be careful not to use gasoline- your hair might catch fire.

Philosophers do have a role in explaining what science is or explaining science to the masses. I'm no fan of philosophy. But Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, and Robert Pennock (from the dover trial) are all philosophers of science and some, if not all, have even published in peer reviewed science magazines (Pennock has 4 articles in Nature). They are truly good guys, and make it so that I don't completely hate philosophy (which tends to obfuscate just like religion much of time.) I just like plain old facts--the truth that is the truth for everybody.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo,

If you are interested in the difference between science and philosophy of science and why this is yet another line of reason that sets off alarm bells I suggest you read these links (because it's been abused ad nauseum by creationists): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html

I don't think this is the right thread to make a case that science and philosophy of science are the same thing. Those who do science, don't think so...nor does Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, nor Robert Pennock--all philosophers of science.

You know, articulett, it would do you some good to actually read what you cite before you cite it. Your citation of Talk Origins' "Evolution and Philosophy" page does make for some nice irony, though, because it is written by a philosopher of science, John S Wilkins. Thus, we have, as I have noted before, a scientist (or at least someone who claims to speak in accord with scientist) citing a philosopher of science to support her point even though she says that philosophy of science has no place in science.

The reason I surmise that you haven't bothered to read the "Philosophy and Evolution" section of Talk Origins is because, in the the first page listed on the page to which you linked, "Is the principle of natural selection a tautology?", Wilkins says this:

The current understanding of fitness is dispositional. That is to say, fitness is a disposition of a trait to reproduce better than competitors. It is not deterministic. If two twins are identical genetically, and therefore are equally fit, there is no guarantee that they will both survive to have equal numbers of offspring. Fitness is a statistical property. What 'owns' the fitness isn't the organism, but the genes. They will tend to be more often transmitted insofar as what they deliver is better 'engineered' to the needs of the organisms in the environment in which they live. And you can determine that, within limits, by 'reverse engineering' the traits to see how they work [Dennett 1995: chapter 8].

(emphasis mine)

While I don't have any illusions that this will convince you that evolution is "random", I think that it is interesting that not only did you direct me to a page that holds the exact opposite view that you do on the "randomness" of evolution, but that the author also cites Dennett as saying that evolution is "random". Thus, even a philosopher of science whom you seem to respect doesn't hold the that evolution is "non-random".

There are more examples of statements that just don't jibe with the general thrust of your argument, articulett, but I have work on an explanation as to why they don't. However, I do think that Wilkins said some very incisive in "Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?" about the relationship among scientist, philosophers of science, and creationists with respect to the "debate" that creationists try to stir up about evolution:

Philosophers do conceptual tidying up, among other things, but scientists are the ones making all the sawdust in the workshop, and they need not be so tidy. And no cleaner should tell any professional (other than cleaners) how it ought to be done. Creationists who say, "evolution is not like what Popper said science should be, so it isn't science" are like the janitor who says that teachers don't keep their classrooms clean enough, so they aren't teachers.

Thus creationists are really just gripers who don't understand what science is and their "criticism" of evolution should be taken as such.

 

[articulett]

You know, articulett, it would do you some good to actually read what you cite before you cite it. Your citation of Talk Origins' "Evolution and Philosophy" page does make for some nice irony, though, because it is written by a philosopher of science, John S Wilkins. Thus, we have, as I have noted before, a scientist (or at least someone who claims to speak in accord with scientist) citing a philosopher of science to support her point even though she says that philosophy of science has no place in science.

I did not say that philosophy of science has no place in science. I merely said it is NOT science, reiterating what Shneibster says, as philosophers of science will tell you.

While I don't have any illusions that this will convince you that evolution is "random", I think that it is interesting that not only did you direct me to a page that holds the exact opposite view that you do on the "randomness" of evolution, but that the author also cites Dennett as saying that evolution is "random". Thus, even a philosopher of science whom you seem to respect doesn't hold the that evolution is "non-random".

I don't have illusions about randomness, you dolt. I have conceded that if random means anything that is related to or described by a probability chart is random--that means the evolution of everything is random...and all processes are random too. Your definition of random makes it useful for understanding the "non random" aspects of evolution--the supposed goal of your OP. The very reason why Dawkins et. al. go out of the way to define random as having a relatively equal chance of occuring--so that selection is not random...it is preferential (as even Sagan said)--because having random components does not make things random unless you are using the loosest possible definition of the word so that people can presume that evolution is the theory that humans arose by random chance. That is an understatement at best, meaningless, and at most misleading...and always dragged out in creationist venues.

And in regard to fitness...the article said what I was saying. It's just about whether a piece of DNA gets copied. There are these crickets who have deformed wings so they can't make a sound...which would make them less fit--because they can't get mates--but they are also more fit, because there's a parasite that infects crickets and finds them by their sound...so the deformed crickets hang around their loud males and then try to mate with a female drawn to the sound. This tendency evolved because the ones who didn't do it, didn't pass on their genes...and the ones that did--for whatever reasons preferentially survived. and we can predict that the parasite will evolve strategies to match this ploy and females will evolve strategies as well the males...each determined by the evolution of everything else. Not randomly--preferentially--driving each other. To sum this up as a random process is as uninformative and misleading as the tornado in a junkyard analogy and leads to such conclusions.

There are more examples of statements that just don't jibe with the general thrust of your argument, articulett, but I have work on an explanation as to why they don't. However, I do think that Wilkins said some very incisive in "Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?" about the relationship among scientist, philosophers of science, and creationists with respect to the "debate" that creationists try to stir up about evolution:



Thus creationists are really just gripers who don't understand what science is and their "criticism" of evolution should be taken as such.

As for this, I don't follow, but then again, I don't think anything you say is clear...I think your whole goal is to muck up understanding and pretend to be trying to understand while just inserting creationist talking points. I think all your posts are of this ilk. They are tangential and wordy and say nothing. You pretended to want to understand what was non-random about evolution--you were given quotes, definitions, and the top sources in the field. But, you decided to define "random" so loosely, that you could only conclude that "evolution is not non-random" and then pretend that this meant something. But it doesn't mean anything. It's useless for understanding natural selection which biologists feel is the "non-random" part of the equation that you are missing. It boils down to creationist strawman #4 per talk origins and no amount of philosophy of science changes that or clarifies that. You already won your argument that evolution is random per your definition. But you made the mistake of pretending you wanted to understand the facts, when you really wanted to assert an argument and win. The facts are still the same for everybody.

All your statements are just so smarmy where you say stuff but not really--and then imply stuff and ask weird questions and then get mad when you are called on it. I really don't know any scientist of any sort that plays semantic games and invokes philosophy or spins off on tangents the way you do. If my statements made me sound identical to a creationist, I would go out of my way to be clear. You go out of your way to be unclear all so you can sum up evolution as "random" and then pretend that that means something or that there is "no evidence that evolution is not non-random". It's just so friggin obvious to me that you are insincere in your every question you ask including the one in the OP. And you crap on the very people who try to answer your question, vouch for you, or help you out. I have no horse in this race--I don't care whether you understand the non-random aspects of evolution/natural selection or not. I can learn all the different definitions of random and all the philosophies of science and it won't add to my understanding of the non-random aspects of evolution nor will it change evolution one bit. I can point out that you use lots of words to say nothing at all. I don't like the obfuscation in the name of pretending to want to understand and supposed intellectual rigor. It's dishonest. You flatter yourself when a touch of humility is in order.

 

[Meadmaker]

While I don't have any illusions that this will convince you that evolution is "random"...

Using your definition (same as my definition) she already acknowledged that evolution is random.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Using your definition (same as my definition) she already acknowledged that evolution is random.

But she refuses to acknowledge that it is the correct definiton of "random" and insists that it is "essentially meaningless" and doesn't described evolution because Dawkins and Sagan say otherwise.

 

[articulett]

But she refuses to acknowledge that it is the correct definiton of "random" and insists that it is "essentially meaningless" and doesn't described evolution because Dawkins and Sagan say otherwise.

There is "no" correct definition. Your OP becomes "what is the evidence (peer reviewed) that evolution is not related to or described by a probability chart"?
There is no such evidence.

If you want to understand why biologists say that natural selection is the opposite of random or why they think it is misleading calling it that, you need to use the word as they define it. If you define random has having an equal probability of occurring then mutations are relatively random, while natural selection (what survives) is not.

I'm not saying the way you say it is meaningless because of anything Dawkins and Sagans say (their words are carefully chosen so as not to fit the creationist strawman, however), I'm saying it's meaningless because I don't think any processes or the evolution of anything can't be described as random given the loose definition you've given to random. Your definition doesn't do anything to distinguish itself from the creationist strawman. Evolution is random if you define random a lot of ways. Evolution is purposeless...not planned...influenced by relatively random occurrences.

You seem to have this need to prove Dawkins wrong--he's not wrong, he's just more careful and explanatory in his words...the Berkeley site even has a glossary for the word random. I don't know whether you find it useful or meaningful to describe the evolution of this thread as random, but I wouldn't. If someone specifically asked what the non-random aspects were, I would have a lot more to say then there are none.

You've defined random so vaguely that to say that evolution is or isn't random ends up meaning nothing at all...and it's a statement indistinguishable from the claim that makes creationists sum up the scientific understanding of evolution as a tornado in a junkyard building a 747.

There isn't anything to argue about. You've turned this into a semantic game. There is no single "correct" meaning for random. And there is no single correct way to define evolution. The biologists are going out of their way to explain preferential survival (natural selection) so as not to make evolution sound like the chance driven impossibility that creationists try to dismiss it as.
There is something about evolution which makes it very different than the tornado in a junkyard analogy,--due to people like Deepak Chopra et. al. we are forced to go out of our way and be extra clear so that people can understand what that difference is. Your wording doesn't do it. It's a simple concept, but due to this endless obfuscating under the pretense of looking for understanding or pretending to know what the hell they are talking about, biologists are forced to define their terms before hand and use their wording carefully. They are not incorrect. They just aren't defining random as loosely as you are. Moreover, they don't think that having random components necessarily makes an entire process random...because then ALL processes, would in essence, be random. Your definition does nothing to distinguish the relative randomness of mutation from the far less random inputs that affect selection--that which brings "order" to the randomness.

Remember, evolution is a fact. The words don't change the facts. Words can be used to understand the facts or obfuscate the facts. There is nothing to win or lose when it comes to the FACTS. They are the same for everybody no matter what words you use.

 

[Meadmaker]

But she refuses to acknowledge that it is the correct definiton of "random" and insists that it is "essentially meaningless" and doesn't described evolution because Dawkins and Sagan say otherwise.

Fine. If you want to show that it is not essentially meaningless, give it a shot. Don't say that she refuses to call it random, though. She is calling it random. Move on to your next point.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett, the thing you seem to have had great success in ignoring, despite the fact that it is has been repeatedly pointed out to you, is that only a specific subset of biologists use "random" in the way you have been using it. You mention Dawkins and Sagan but ignore, inter alia, Wright, Fisher, Haldane, Kimura, Moran, and Maynard-Smith, who all described evolution as a statistical or probabilistic process. These men are not just fringe evolutionary biologists (actually they are also referred to as population biologists/geneticists, which may have something to do with why they all considered evolution statistical or probabilistic) but major contributors to the Modern Synthesis whose works are still widely cited and considered classics in evolutionary biology today.

The selectivity with which you limit your definition and choose your source is what is so maddening about your argument; you ignore wide swathes of evolutionary theory in support of your argument and then accuse your opponents of doing the same thing.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Fine. If you want to show that it is not essentially meaningless, give it a shot. Don't say that she refuses to call it random, though. She is calling it random. Move on to your next point.

My point is that, by the definition I have always used, evolution is "random" and that calling names doesn't change that fact.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I suppose, instead of ranting like a petulant child about perceived injustices, I should ask a question.

How would one respond to the evolutionary biologists I listed above and the literally thousands of authors who have cited them when they call evolution a "probabilistic process", "random process", "statistical process", or "stochastic process"?

Or how would one reconcile two such large bodies of literature with one another?

 

[Meadmaker]

I heard someone on the radio talking about the "Brazil Nut Problem". This problem is that when you open up a can of mixed nuts, the Brazil Nuts are on top.

While this specific problem might be of very little interest, except possibly to packers and consumers of mixed nuts, it's a specific example of a general case of problems in which objects of variable volume end up not uniformly distributed when packed in a container. Specifically, the big ones end up on top. (The guy on the radio was talking about packing sand, and the different properties it has depending on how it was packed. This has important implications for a lot of physical processes, but he was especially interested in the physics depicted in "Spiderman III".)

Is this problem a "random" phenomenon? We know exactly which nuts end up on top. It's the Brazil Nuts. Nothing "random" there. We even know why they end up there. It's due to gravitational selection. OK. I just made that term up. It's due to the fact that when someone shakes the container, the small particles fall through teeny holes, and end up on the bottom, which leaves the big ones with nowhere to go, and they end up on top. Nothing random there.

However, let us suppose that we want to understand the degree to which the nut distribution is nonuniform. That might have commercial implications. It might change the way you operate the machinery that packs the nuts, to ensure that you don't end up with a container that is mostly cashews, or mostly brazil nuts. To get a good answer to that question without running every possible physical case and just reading the answer, scientists have developed mathematical models of various sorts of objects, and how they behave when packed in a container that is then shaken. Guess what? Those models are random, i.e. stochastic, and that's important to getting the right answer from the models. Given those models, we can make accurate predictions about whether or not our mixed nuts will be properly mixed in their containers. I would say that mixed nut shaking is a random process, even though the results are completely predictable.

Now compare that with evolution. We can say that animals that are more fit are the ones that will survive. We can say how those characteristics might occur through mutation, recombination, etc. We can say that these things result in greater chance of characteristics passing to future generation, and say that the development of organisms with greater fitness is every bit as inevitable as the presence of the brazil nuts on the top of the container.

Suppose, though, that someone asks you how long it will take for those traits to develop. How would you answer? Just as with the brazil nuts, it's not just important that they will get there someday. It's important to know how long the process will take.

The creationists (and IDists) say that there's not enough time. That's the essence of the argument. It isn't anything to do with randomness as such. Their argument is that there is not enough time for the brazil nuts to get to the top, i.e. for random mutation to generate characteristics that confer a selection advantage.

Of course, they can't back up their claims. Unfortunately, we can't refute their claims, either. We simply can't show any model that answers the question of how long it takes for one species to evolve into another. We have hints. We have fossils. We have comparative anatomy and DNA studies, but when it comes right down to it, we have pretty close to doodley-squat of real hard core data that answers their question.

So why are we so confident we are right? We have one other thing. We have naturalism. It must be that way. All the evidence is consistent with the explanation, and darnit the world operates by natural law. That isn't a position exclusive to atheists, either. Most Christians believe the same thing. So, if the world operates by natural law, and everything that we have looks like it evolved, we can assume we evolved.

But don't be surprised if the people who reject naturalism aren't buying into it. Until you can show they are wrong, you'll have plenty of opposition, and it isn't because they don't understand natural selection, or because they call things "random". Many of them get it just fine, but they haven't seen anyone show them that it can really happen, and they are perfectly willing to assume that God did it, breaking the laws of nature along the way.

ETA: Oops. Forgot the "random" part. I believe that when models are developed that help us answer that question, those models will be stochastic models, in both the mutation and selection components.

 

[articulett]

Well, so far, the models that people seem to understand the best and use the most are the same ones that would apply to the "evolution of this thread". I think "random mutation coupled with natural selection". Probabilistic concepts are used all the time in genetics--game theory-cross overs--assortive matings--all of DNA testing is based on the probability of variation is a given environment. We just use very specific terms when talking about probabilities (not scales of randomness), but when we talk about the principle of evolution in general we take advantage of peoples' general understanding about randomness to describe genomic changes and phenotypic changes and peoples general understanding about selection processes (picking from the randomness or a domino effect from a chance domino fall) to describe the incremental nature and accumulation of "beneficial" (for copying purposes only) genomic effects.

I'm not ignoring your cites. The few I did were simply not summing up evolution as a random process, nor are they used by any of the notables in the field to describe evolution as a whole. They might be useful...game theory has taught us much about group selection and how genomes act as a group of genes and cells in an organism act as a group and animals can enjoy group benefits, etc. All of the best in the field who actually understand evolution go out of their way to define terms and distinguish the relative randomness of mutation from far less randomness of selection. Everything in the environment is not "truly" random in that it follows physical laws...we just don't have all the data--but it's pretty easy to get the big picture if you understand natural selection--why some stuff gets copied and others don't.

Cancers make tons of copies of their aberrant cells, and doctors attempt to kill them with chemo and radiation because they know that the more replication going on, the more likely there will be some mutation that escapes the chemo or is resistant or "lucky" or escapes into the blood stream to start a colony elsewhere. This isn't unlike roaches or resistant bacteria. So you want to understand not just the probabilities or the fact that it can be described by probabilities--but that time and replication amounts alter probabilities hugely. Everything about time and anything that affects any DNAs ability to replicate helps shape what survives to spawn. Calling this random is not-informative. It doesn't convey the accumulation or domino effect of events through time.

You can describe evolution however you want. It doesn't change the facts nor does calling evolution random convey what evolution actually is--how it works. I never said it was wrong--only that it's so prone to misinterpretation and abuse that no respected scientist that I know of sums up evolution that way at all. They are, in fact, very careful to distinguish the the relative randomness of mutation from selection for that very reason. They go out of their way to define their terms and use less broad definitions for clarity sake--so that people who ACTUALLY desire to know the "non-random" aspects of evolution (or why biologists refer to selection as the opposite of chance) can do so.

As everyone is telling you, when you say evolution is a random process, your claim is indistinguishable from the creationist claim that says "evolution says that life got here by chance alone". Evolution says a lot more than that. But if you can get people to believe that is what evolution says, then an intelligent designer looks more plausible.

Even your cites aren't advocating calling evolution "random". One wants to define natural selection as a dynamic or statistical process, but biologists reject that because it's not useful for understanding what is actually going on. You can understand quite well what is going on in the evolution of duck genitalia without having to invoke probabilities of any kind. Why bother with a useless tool?

And Meadmaker, there are all sorts of probability models already--game theory...all of bayesian analysis...population genetics...genetic drift...Mendalian inheritance. We just don't describe these models in terms of randomness--rather we define them in terms of preferential survival. And your nut analogy is good. If you want to know the non-random aspect of nut sorting your "small nuts fall down the holes" is a good explanation (it's the sieve--the selector--the bringer of order). So you could say the nuts randomly end up on top (it can, after all, be described by a probability distribution, but that is meaningless. And if someone had the notion that some intelligent designer or packager puts them on top to make them look like there are more of them than there are...suddenly that becomes a reasonable explanation...if your only alternative is "random"--btw, different shapes of containers sort nuts differently...)

I think you and I have come to an agreement (gasp).

 

[articulett]

Meadmaker, I've shown multiple examples where evolution is summed up as "complexity from chance"--so where is the creationist who understands natural selection and describes natural selection as other that complexity from chance. Where is the creationist who sums it up as simply as Talk Origins, or Dawkins, or Berekely or Sagan? My contention is that they either don't understand or they don't want others to understand. It is the core of their argument. It is the reason biologists bend over backwards to distinguish the sifting process of the nuts from the randomness of the nuts being dropped into the container. When we don't, the nutters create conspiracy theories as to why the big nuts are on top. No other science has to deal with this crap. The wedge strategy is not designed to muddle peoples' understanding of physics or atoms or chemistry--it is designed for them to have others dismiss evolution as a belief fostered by scientists that have this crazy notion that all of this came about by chance. The flip side is to offer an alternative that sounds sciency and, at least as plausible (and more ego gratifying) than the scientific strawman.

Please find me one creationist anywhere that seems to grasp the incremental nature of natural selection...someone who grasps it as easily as your nut analogy...which is "gravitational selection"--or whatever... It isn't completely "random". If it was humans rather than nuts, you'd be playing word games and be running off on tangential arguments rather then just being able to state the facts simply. People would say...oh, so then it's just random because not ALL the smallest nuts fall to the bottom, and admittedly there are some Brazil nuts on the bottom...so nut distribution is just random...and so something must be going on to make it so they all suddenly appear on top.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, articulett, do you consider, inter alia, Wright, Fisher, Haldane, Kimura, Moran, and Maynard-Smith to be notables in their fields?

Granted, it has been about 20 years since most of these men died, but they still remain giants in their fields. For instance, according to Google Scholar, the various editions of Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, which all make copious reference to probability distributions at all stages of the evolutionary process have, have been cited approximately 4000 times since its first publication in 1930.

 

[articulett]

IMany of them get it just fine, but they haven't seen anyone show them that it can really happen, and they are perfectly willing to assume that God did it, breaking the laws of nature along the way.

ETA: Oops. Forgot the "random" part. I believe that when models are developed that help us answer that question, those models will be stochastic models, in both the mutation and selection components.

Evidence? And anyone who wants to can become familiar with DNA and the picture is obvious. We can even compare our chromosomes side by side with various apes and SEE exactly what some of the bigger mutations involved. I think you may be unaware of how much molecular genetics actually does know--we have fossils in our DNA that are not active in us, but are active in our animal kin. Every living cell as a record of the route the DNA traveled to get to the present. http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

We don't need statistical charts...we can see what survived and what changed. We know approximately when and where many of these changes took place--we even know the general time it takes for various areas of DNA to show changes. We can tell how closely related any two life forms are--with the same type tests as paternity testing and forensic testing. Calling all this random seems the equivalent Kleinmans everlasting bad math problem asking us to show him how point mutations could evolve a gene de novo. (Creationists ask the most inane questions). Natural selection evolves genomes over time. The evidence is much further along than you seem to be aware of. If you can read the map of DNA you can know the secrets no humans could know before--you could get the data for your probability charts and so forth..because we have and we do. We've long gone beyond semantic games--an abundance of info. is coming our way, and we need to have people that understand it.

I don't think getting people to understand how loosely random can be defined is the key. I think selction...just like in your nut example...is the key. The results make so much sense once you get the key...

 

[articulett]

Molecular genetics is the future. I really encourage people to get on the same page as biologists in regards to the word random in regaards to evolution Otherwise, how are you going to be able to grasp the cool stuff like this? Sure, this could be described by a probability distribution--but I think the chart and the way it is explained is much better at conveying the facts AND natural selection.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/dna_virus.html
Four reasons the patterns aren't random. First, the patterns are too large to randomly occur several times. Second, they were not found anywhere in the computer databases of previously known DNA patterns, meaning that they aren't particularly probable. Third, randomness should have caused creatures that had one pattern but not the other. Fourth, they are found in the identical places on the chromosomes of different species. Random things should occur in random places. As the editors of Nature pointed out, the chance of two such events happening at the same location is virtually nil. Yet the patterns are found, not at one matching location, but at seven matching locations. The overall coincidence is "virtually nil" to the seventh power

 

[Schneibster]

articulett, the ONLY loose definition of "random" is the popular one. The remaining ones are all technical and highly specific. This is what frustrated me so much; you just aren't getting that, and I don't care how many times you say you do, as long as you keep referring to "loose" definitions of random, you still didn't.

ETA: apparently there's even a technical and highly specific one for biology, too, you're just not using it, and neither is Dawkins, apparently.

 

[articulett]

So, articulett, do you consider, inter alia, Wright, Fisher, Haldane, Kimura, Moran, and Maynard-Smith to be notables in their fields?

Granted, it has been about 20 years since most of these men died, but they still remain giants in their fields. For instance, according to Google Scholar, the various editions of Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, which all make copious reference to probability distributions at all stages of the evolutionary process have, have been cited approximately 4000 times since its first publication in 1930.

Scientific knowledge evolves. Our scientific knowledge of evolution has really evolved. Our ways of explaining what we've been learning have evolved. I'm sure there will always be mention of probability distributions in regard to evolution and various aspects of evolution. However, I know of know biologist that uses the term random so loosely that it just means "of or related to aprobabilty distribution". I think they are much more careful and detailed in their use of words. You do realize that we only just finished mapping the human genome, right? Some new definitions might be in order. The scientists of today tend to use the clearest and most useful language and tools for learning more and conveying their understanding to others. Are you saying Dawkins, Jones, Pigliucci, Ridley, Carroll, et. al are not notable in their field because they don't refer to evolution as a "random process" and define random in a way that makes a definite distinction between changes on a genomic level and changes that are selected by the environment? Are you calling the Berekely website wrong because they say selection is not-random? Are you calling Dawkins a liar because he refers to selection as the "opposite of chance"? You and your damn, inane, misleading, non-informative, tangential questions that imply so much but say so so little.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wow, such hostility. I was merely pointing out that you are ignoring some of the most influential figures in evolutionary biology who continue to be influential after their deaths. I realize that there are many influential evolutionary biologists that argue in their popular publications that evolution is the "opposite of random", but I think you're deliberately trying to downplay those that claim that evolution is a "stochastic process", because it doesn't fit into your neat little worldview. This denial is especially suspect since stating that evolution is the "opposite of random" requires you, and those that you claim to support you in the biological community, to ignore over 3000 publications that record the success of using stochastic models to describe evolution.

Is the use of stochastic modeling in evolutionary biology really so removed from the rest of the evolutionary biology community that Dawkins and his intellectual compatriots can honestly claim that they know nothing about the past 85 years of research done in that subfield?