What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

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.

Mijo says that he is using this definition of random: Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

That is not even in my dictionary. And that is not what most people mean when they hear the word random. We've already cited how many definitions of random? And we've already determined that no matter how you define it, it's the same for evolution as it is for the evolution of this thread. There is no single definition. And All of the Biology websites I've referred to have the word defined--and not defined as "anything associated with probabilities". The popular definition is "chance" or haphazard. The definition you are using is so loose that it makes the evolution of everything random, doesn't it? Doesn't it also make all processes random? Doesn't this make it useless? It doesn't matter if I "get it" or not, because I UNDERSTAND natural selection--which is the OP question and how Biologists answer the question in the OP and why.

I could call evolution random by many definitions of the word. However, the question in the OP was about the non-random elements of natural selection. It's fine to say "there are none", but biologists don't say that, because it has lead to the tornado in the junkyard analogy and other readily dismissed caricatures of what Biologists actually know. Moreover, because calling selection random is misleading on so many levels and so "meaningless" in regards to what "natural selection" is that, we wince when we hear certain loaded questions or simplistic conclusions. It just makes sense to distinguish the pool of randomness from the processes which select from that pool.

And maybe I don't get it. I don't understand why anyone would ask a question that could be re-phrased as "what is the evidence that evolution is "not of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution." It doesn't matter to me if I understand random. I do understand Natural Selection. I do understand the word random the way the biologists are using it. I do understand why they are careful about describing natural selection and not confusing the random events that affect it with the randomness of mutation. I do understand how summing up evolution as random is the ticket for people thinking of the 747 analogy, and I do understand why all the biologist sites and teachers and books and papers are very clear on conveying meaning. Sure Duck genitalia can be said to evolve randomly...but if you want someone to know the details--have it make sense, you need to say a little more than that...in fact, you don't have to use that word or probability statistics or anything else. And if someone asked for the evidence that duck genitalia did not arise randomly, a biologist would have a lot to say about natural selection, whereas with your definition, the answer would be "there is none".

Statistics does not have a monopoly on word usage, you know. And the facts are the same, so it's important to be as clear as possible with words. And the way Dawkins does it, works. Maybe not for everybody. But I can't see how this "of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" definition works for anybody--and I sure don't see how it answers the question or even how the question means anything with such a vague definition.

In MMs example, you would say the nuts sort randomly, right--or stochastically? Or that it's a random process? But if someone indicated that it couldn't be random because so many big nuts ended up on top, would you still keep insisting it's random or define the concept further? If you said, "nope, it's just random" and they went on to think that you were tricking them and that some "intelligence" must be involved, you would probably be a little more careful when someone asked you about the nuts on top the next 10 times. You'd start modifying your definition so that you could describe gravity and the small things falling to the bottom instead of just summing it all up with random. THAT is the position the biologists are in. We have to be careful to distinguish our answers from the tornado analogy--from creationist conundrum #4. So we use narrower definitions because a definition that works for everything is fairly useless to conveying understanding. As is illustrated by the nut example above.

There is nothing for me to gain or lose by getting a greater understanding of the word random. The question was about the "non-random" aspects of evolution. I can provide those. So can Berkeley and Talk Origins and Dawkins. Unless random is defined so loosely as to make the question nonsensical. If the evolution of everything or all processes can be boiled down to random because they can be described by a probability chart--then you've defined the word so loosely that it no longer conveys any information.
It's useless. And all the people who disagree can get together and live in their own self righteous land of the "right" definitions claiming that biologists don't listen to the creationists or don't understand the real problem while the rest of us learn some of the coolest facts humans have been able to know (like in that link above.) Most biologists, including Dawkins, love sharing their knowledge. Few want to be drawn into silly semantic arguments. Fewer still want to be tricked into them by smarmy questions designed to promote a known creationist obfuscation point.

The facts are the same. The definitions are what they are, and they are not the same. There is no single definition accepted across the board by scientists. Whether I get it or not is irrelevant to Mijo's question. There is something that distinguishes evolution from the tornado in the junkyard analogy--and Biologists are doing the best they can to convey what that something is. It doesn't always work, but it's getting better and better, and so far, nothing more useful or meaningful has been presented. Calling evolution random, doesn't do the trick.

I don't care if you think I "get" randomness or that people will understand evolution if they "get" randomness. I care about the facts. I understand what the "non-random" aspects of evolution are and why biologists are very careful in their wording. I understand WHY Dawkins is able to convey his understanding to many. I understand why many would like for people not to understand natural selection via whatever means possible. I'm not interested in semantic games or in being convinced that there is one true definition for random--every dictionary shows otherwise. If it was an agreed upon term, this thread would have been a lot shorter. And the answer is the same for no matter what definition of random you use--the non random aspects of the evolution of this thread are the same for the non-random aspects of evolution itself. If that means there are none--then there are none.

I would imagine that if one actually wanted to understand the "non-random" terms of evolution he would go with the glossary of the people talking about it. And in biology, when we want to talk about probability distributions we actually use the term "probability distributions" rather than "random". It's just a lot clearer that way. I wouldn't think they'd go with their own definition that many don't seem to know and that are so broad that roughly everything that contains any randomness is a "random process". What process is not random by that definition. What process cannot be described by or related to a probability chart. What a useless definition that is for conveying meaning. How obfuscating is it to use random rather than preferential survival or actual probabilities?

 

[articulett]

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?

Yeah, I get hostile because you ask smarmy questions and lie by implication in every post. Nobody is ignoring "influential figures"--not me or Dawkins or any of the current biologist. As we understand more, better models evolve and so do better ways of explaining knowledge.

It is you who has the need to sum up evolution as a random process...who had that need before he even started this thread. My worldview is not at issue in regards to "stochastic processes". It just isn't a useful way to describe the knowledge we have. We have evolved greater understanding, better language capabilities, tighter definitions, and we've learned from people who have mischaracterized claims from before. Just as old computer languages aren't the best for describing current computer languages--the same is true of your cites.

I am not bent on calling evolution non-random. That was your question in the OP. I, like most biologists ,distinguish the randomness of mutation from natural selection. I understand exactly what Dawkins means and others are conveying when they say that selection brings order to the randomness or is the "opposite of chance". You don't. You can't. You won't. Because you are the one that has a need to have evolution characterized in a particular way. To me and most biologists it is as meaningless as MM telling people that the nuts are on top due to "random processes". It might be true-ish--but it doesn't convey the information necessary to understand anything.

Nobody is ignoring 3000 papers nor has any paper summed up evolution in quite the lame manner that you do. Moreover, some of the papers were talking specifically about mutation or recombination... and you considered papers supportive of your view if they merely said something about some aspect of evolution being "not determined" or involved "probability". That's really stretching it.

And your last paragraph is a complete straw man. Dawkins knows all about such studies--and he's contributed tons of information of his own since their publication. In fact, I think he is probably the foremost expert in genetics today, and probably the person most people would refer others to if they wanted to understand genetics and/or evolution.

Listen, you can define things however you want and use whatever terms you want and answer your question however you want. But if you actually wanted to understand the answer to your question, I would suggest going with the term random as glossaries are describing them at the Biology sites.

I mean you guys can argue about which definition of random is right and whose definition should be used and if what words are the right way to explain evolution and whether there is anything about evolution that you think could be characterized as non-random. You can argue about old papers and philosophy of science or what the real issue is with creationists. But none of that changes the facts about evolution or creationist obfuscation. It just turns everything into a semantic game that you aren't even really involved in. Nobody cares what you think is the best way to describe evolution They care about the best tools to convey understanding...and your method is obsolete because it conveys so little and is so ripe for abuse. You don't have to believe this...you can get mad and accusatory and demand that your definition is the true one and that the evolution of everything really is truly random and should be defined as such. You can scream at the top of your lungs that Dawkins and everyone else who calls natural selection "non-random" is just plain wrong-- but it's just your silly opinion. ..semantics... meaningless. Useless, unless you have something better.

For better or for worse, Biologists have learned to use what works to convey understanding...and to avoid pitfalls that creationists set out at every turn.
Would you actually say there is no evidence for nut assortment being non-random if someone asked what the evidence was for non-random assortment of nuts? Because that is what you are doing regarding evolution.
The nuts can be described on a probability distribution--therefore they are random. With stellar information like this being passed around, I think that even you should be able to understand why no biologist is likely to jump on your band wagon (except for Behe) when asked to explain the non-random aspects of evolution. Dawkins isn't stupid. He's just been drawn into inane semantic conversations like this one, all too many times. And nobody has a monopoly on word definitions.

I'm not the one pretending to want to understand while rejecting every answer that doesn't fit the answer I want. It already makes perfect sense to me. And it's the biologists whose world view isn't neat and simple like the movement of gases, so I laugh at your reference to "my simple world view"--You're the simplistic one trying to sum up a depthful principles as "random processes" without further clarification and quoting old philosophers of science while claiming that the top biologists of today don't understand something that you magically do. You're the one with such a loose definition of random that your explanation of evolution could be interpreted as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. You've provided nothing in your definition to distinguish it from such a canard. You are the one who has shown no evidence of being able to share a cogent bit of wisdom with anyone while claiming that those who do so all the time aren't doing it right.

 

[Schneibster]

Mijo says that he is using this definition of random: Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

That is not even in my dictionary.

I don't care what definition mijo is using.

And that is not what most people mean when they hear the word random.

I'm also not interested in what "most people" mean when they hear or use the word random; I think that's been made sufficiently clear that I have no idea why you are repeating it over and over.

We've already cited how many definitions of random?

Approximately as many as the number of times you've failed to understand that they are at bottom all the same, with the exception of the
popular definition above, which has absolutely nothing to do with the way that it's used in any scientific discipline.

And we've already determined that no matter how you define it, it's the same for evolution as it is for the evolution of this thread.

That's your deal; I don't recall agreeing that that is true, and have no interest in discussing a metaphor when the subject is at hand.

There is no single definition.

There is; that's what you're failing to comprehend. You're basically trying to tell me that biology is somehow special among all the sciences, that "random" there has a completely different meaning than it does in any other science, and I'm telling you that it's BS.

And All of the Biology websites I've referred to have the word defined--and not defined as "anything associated with probabilities".

Uh-huh. The ones I've seen so far are for 6-year-olds. If you don't want anyone working in any of the other sciences to either understand what you're talking about, or think you have a clue what you're talking about yourself, you're going about it the right way. This borders on woo.

The popular definition is "chance" or haphazard.

So you've said, over and over, like it's going to mean something different this time. Again, I am uninterested in the popular definition. You aren't talking to a child here.

The definition you are using is so loose that it makes the evolution of everything random, doesn't it?

Do you not understand that the order of everything we see around us, living or not, arises from underlying random quantum behavior? Do you not see that most of the phenomena we encounter in our daily lives show examples of order arising from underlying chaos? Do you not comprehend that this is such a common phenomenon that a physicist in a lab whose co-worker says, "Well, that looks random" will almost certainly reply, "Hmmm, that's interesting?" Can you not realize that if you deny evolution is random to that physicist, the immediate mental response is, "Well, I guess it's not one of those phenomena in which underlying chaos generates higher-level order," and that this is plain flat WRONG? You've just lied to the physicist, no matter what you think you might be saying for the benefit of a crowd that quite frankly will never believe what you say no matter how compelling it is.

Doesn't it also make all processes random?

You could probably think of it that way; you could with equal truth say that it makes all processes orderly. Or at least that very large majority of them in which overlying order emerges from underlying chaos.

Doesn't this make it useless?

It's a classification, and as such, it links the phenomenon of evolution to phenomena in physics that show this kind of emergent behavior, in the mind of a physicist. It invokes all sorts of parallels to processes that the physicist has been looking at and looking for all hir career. Evolution then falls into the class of "processes that generate order from underlying chaos." The physicist then says, "Ah! It's one of those processes. I understand." And does. Telling this physicist, "evolution is not random," is negative information, because to the physicist that implies that evolution is NOT one of those processes, and in fact it IS one of those processes.

It doesn't matter if I "get it" or not, because I UNDERSTAND natural selection--which is the OP question and how Biologists answer the question in the OP and why.

Then not only are you answering it wrong, because you are not evaluating your audience but instead treating them all like six-year-olds or cretinists, but you are also answering it wrong, because you are deluding a significant portion of your audience.

I could call evolution random by many definitions of the word. However, the question in the OP was about the non-random elements of natural selection.

Yes, and it was written not by a six-year-old, but by someone who has sufficient experience in the physical sciences and sufficient knowledge of evolution that his response to your, "evolution is not random," was, "WHAT!!???!??!? so you decided to accuse him of being a cretinist. That it appears he may be agnostic only makes the situation worse. You are now driving someone away who might otherwise, in the presence of reasonable arguments not intended for six-year-olds, actually wind up shedding some doubt.

It's fine to say "there are none", but biologists don't say that, because it has lead to the tornado in the junkyard analogy and other readily dismissed caricatures of what Biologists actually know.

So? What evidence do you have that you are not talking to someone who knows enough to see that what you're saying can't possibly be true, by the definition of random he means, who won't then walk off thinking, "Man, those biologists are real nut-jobs?"

Moreover, because calling selection random is misleading on so many levels and so "meaningless" in regards to what "natural selection" is that, we wince when we hear certain loaded questions or simplistic conclusions. It just makes sense to distinguish the pool of randomness from the processes which select from that pool.

And yet again, you haven't gotten it. You still don't understand what random means. Think about why I would say that in response to THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT.

There is only one level. It is not meaningless, it is the assignment of evolution to a class of phenomena that create the most beautiful and wonderful phenomena we know of. And evolution is not natural selection alone; but even if it were, it would still be random.

And maybe I don't get it. I don't understand why anyone would ask a question that could be re-phrased as "what is the evidence that evolution is "not of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution."

Because it is the question, "How can evolution NOT BE one of those random processes that create so much of the order of our world?" But only if you understand what random means.

It doesn't matter to me if I understand random.

Then it does not matter to you whether you communicate with your peers in the scientific community.

I do understand Natural Selection.

I believe you understand what you conceive of it, but I'm far from convinced you understand it as one of those processes, because you don't seem to understand that such processes exist, are ubiquitous, and generate a great deal of the order we see in the world around us.

I do understand the word random the way the biologists are using it.

I question that it is correct, since mijo has presented pretty compelling evidence to the contrary. My evidence is all around me; in addition, the way mijo's references defined it is precisely the sort of thing I had in mind, and they were biologists, and seminal figures in the field. If you are indeed correct and other biologists are using it in the way you describe, then they have gone as insane as the mathematicians did in the 1960s.

I do understand why they are careful about describing natural selection and not confusing the random events that affect it with the randomness of mutation.

Ahhhh, yes. Now, you see, you think you have two different types of randomness. You do not. You have one type, in two different phenomena. And it's that same type I'm talking about, that generates order from chaos. If I tell you that selection is one of the constraints that generates the order, and the laws of physics that determine the molecular biology of the gene are another, will you begin to comprehend that this is ALL ONE THING? Or am I doomed, like Sisyphus, to push the rock all the way up to the top of the mountain again, only to have it roll back down again?

I do understand how summing up evolution as random is the ticket for people thinking of the 747 analogy, and I do understand why all the biologist sites and teachers and books and papers are very clear on conveying meaning.

To six-year-olds. The rest of the scientists will think you're insane when you hit them with this crap. Just like mijo does.

Sure Duck genitalia can be said to evolve randomly...but if you want someone to know the details--have it make sense, you need to say a little more than that...in fact, you don't have to use that word or probability statistics or anything else.

If you're talking to a six-year-old, you don't. Someone with training in the physical sciences, however, is another matter entirely. And after you do the "evolution is not random" dance, when you start telling them (or they find out for themselves) how it REALLY works, they're going to think either that you're insane or that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. And you know what? They might be right.

And if someone asked for the evidence that duck genitalia did not arise randomly, a biologist would have a lot to say about natural selection, whereas with your definition, the answer would be "there is none".

Not if they were smart enough to ask, "Whadda ya mean, 'random?'"

Statistics does not have a monopoly on word usage, you know.

When one branch of science begins using a word that has a single, specific meaning in every other branch, as having a different meaning, then I have to question whether it is possible for them to communicate their findings to the larger scientific community.

And the facts are the same, so it's important to be as clear as possible with words.

I could hardly agree more. That's what all of this is about. You're not being clear with words; you're talking as if you were addressing six-year-olds.

And the way Dawkins does it, works. Maybe not for everybody. But I can't see how this "of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" definition works for anybody--and I sure don't see how it answers the question or even how the question means anything with such a vague definition.

That's because you're using a non-standard definition of random. You mean "disorderly," and everyone else in the scientific community doesn't mean that at all.

In MMs example, you would say the nuts sort randomly, right--or stochastically? Or that it's a random process? But if someone indicated that it couldn't be random because so many big nuts ended up on top, would you still keep insisting it's random or define the concept further?

First, I'd make sure they understood what random meant. Then I'd tell them, yes, it's random- that plus the constraints are what generates the order. It's a basic fact of science that many things work this way. If they're interested in science, then they'd better know that right from the start. For the curious ones, it's a well-baited hook. Their mouth will drop open, their eyes will pop out, and they'll go, "Oh, so THAT'S what they're talking about!!!" If you're lucky and catch one that hasn't figured it out yet. I have done so a few times here.

If you said, "nope, it's just random" and they went on to think that you were tricking them and that some "intelligence" must be involved, you would probably be a little more careful when someone asked you about the nuts on top the next 10 times.

Yep- I'd make sure they understood what "random" means every single time.

You'd start modifying your definition so that you could describe gravity and the small things falling to the bottom instead of just summing it all up with random. THAT is the position the biologists are in.

If that's true of those trained in the other sciences, you guys are in deep, deep trouble. You've gone in a direction that no other science will be able to follow you. It's no doubt true of six-year-olds and cretinists, but that's not who you're dealing with here.

We have to be careful to distinguish our answers from the tornado analogy--from creationist conundrum #4.

Not if you're not talking to six-year-olds or cretinists. Pardon me, but has it ever occurred to you that it might be just a little bit arrogant to treat people with extensive training in scientific disciplines that are just as complex as yours like they are six-year-olds or cretinists?

So we use narrower definitions because a definition that works for everything is fairly useless to conveying understanding. As is illustrated by the nut example above.

Well, THAT didn't work out all that well, now did it?

Seems to me that rather than narrowing the definition, you've broadened it- because the way you're using random is totally different from the way it's used in any other science. And it has a very specific meaning in those other sciences.

There is nothing for me to gain or lose by getting a greater understanding of the word random.

If you only want to talk to six-year-olds and cretinists, you're probably right.

The question was about the "non-random" aspects of evolution. I can provide those. So can Berkeley and Talk Origins and Dawkins. Unless random is defined so loosely as to make the question nonsensical.

If you insist on using the non-technical definition, then it IS defined that loosely. It's by no means the correct definition to be using when talking to people with scientific training, however. And under that highly specific, technical definition, you are wrong; you cannot provide any non-random aspects of evolution, because there aren't any. It's the tight definition that prevents you from making that statement, not the loose one. Under the loose one, you are perfectly correct in stating that evolution is not random; it is only when you consider the very specific, technical definition that you are incorrect.

If the evolution of everything or all processes can be boiled down to random because they can be described by a probability chart--then you've defined the word so loosely that it no longer conveys any information.

No, I've defined it so tightly that I can define a class of processes in which order emerges from chaos due to constraint. And evolution is one of those processes. The phenomena engendered by such processes are at the heart of the deepest and most powerful theories we have in many of the sciences; so it's no surprise that it should show up in biology, too. But if you keep telling chemists that evolution is not random, they'll never know it.

It's useless.

For six-year-olds and cretinists.

And all the people who disagree can get together and live in their own self righteous land of the "right" definitions claiming that biologists don't listen to the creationists or don't understand the real problem while the rest of us learn some of the coolest facts humans have been able to know (like in that link above.)

That would be all the rest of the scientists. Who are engaged in some of that fact-knowing themselves, or had you forgotten that? Considering you're treating them all like six-year-olds and cretinists, I'd say you have.

Most biologists, including Dawkins, love sharing their knowledge. Few want to be drawn into silly semantic arguments. Fewer still want to be tricked into them by smarmy questions designed to promote a known creationist obfuscation point.

And yet fewer, apparently, care whether they can clearly communicate their findings to their peers in other sciences.

The facts are the same. The definitions are what they are, and they are not the same. There is no single definition accepted across the board by scientists.

You are wrong, and all of the physical sciences prove it conclusively. Do you really want to argue physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, astrophysics, electronics, computer science, and molecular biology with me? I've been avoiding going there, but quite frankly, if you keep this up, that's where we're going, and when we're done, everyone will know you're wrong, whether you admit it or not. I'll give you a taste:

The fluctuation theorem has shown not only how the Second Law of Thermodynamics emerges smoothly from the chaos of quantum mechanics, but furthermore shown that that chaos is necessary for the order to emerge. Specifically, the proof of the fluctuation theorem requires ergodic consistency, time reversal symmetry, and the mathematics that describe the dynamics of the system at the individual interaction level. That this theorem accurately represents reality has been shown a few years back in an experiment in which the Second Law of Thermodynamics was reversed. Briefly, and over a very small spatial extent, but this was an Earth-shattering notion no more than a decade ago.

Physicists have been making strides in recent decades in the analysis of chaotic phenomena. New theories of fluid mechanics, among other traditionally "chaotic" disciplines, have emerged from this revolution. As a result, models of climate have become possible that were not before.

This same concept of chaos, and the emergence of order due to constraint, has led to imaging techniques that have permitted astrophysicists to discover hundreds of planets orbiting other stars.

In another realm of physics, physicists have found that the descriptions of superconductors, curious superfluids called "Bose-Einstein condensates," and new fabrication techniques that permit the creation of so-called "metamaterials" which are capable of having negative refractive indices all require the use of chaos mathematics to properly predict their properties. This is condensed matter physics, and it is the hottest part of physics going right now; from this will come not only the techniques, but the applications, some of them right out of science fiction, that will drive the nanotech revolution. And you know, that's awfully close to molecular biology.

Do I need to go on, or are you beginning to get this? I hope you do, because this type of mathematics will be invading the theory of biology at a university near you, if it has not already. And it will apply not only to genetics, but to population biology, and molecular biology, and evolutionary biology as well, most likely. So I hope you're ready, and I hope you understand what random means, because if not, you're going to be decades behind the rest of the sciences, and unable to communicate with their practitioners.

Whether I get it or not is irrelevant to Mijo's question.

Oh, come ON, you have got to be kidding. It was clear to me from the first thing I read that mijo was looking precisely for that exact type of randomness. Nothing could possibly be MORE relevant.

There is something that distinguishes evolution from the tornado in the junkyard analogy--and Biologists are doing the best they can to convey what that something is. It doesn't always work, but it's getting better and better, and so far, nothing more useful or meaningful has been presented. Calling evolution random, doesn't do the trick.

That depends who you're talking to. I'm sure it doesn't work well with cretinists and six-year-olds.

I don't care if you think I "get" randomness or that people will understand evolution if they "get" randomness.

Then what is the purpose of this entire post you've made?

I care about the facts.

You care about presenting the facts to a captive audience of six-year-olds, likely containing some whose parents are cretinists. Not to your peers. This is going to cost you; have you ever heard the term, "consilience?" You're not going to get that if you don't start paying attention.

I understand what the "non-random" aspects of evolution are and why biologists are very careful in their wording.

You understand the orderly processes, and think that means they are not random.

I understand WHY Dawkins is able to convey his understanding to many.

And I understand why the physicists think the biologists are crazy.

I understand why many would like for people not to understand natural selection via whatever means possible.

And have no understanding of how to communicate it to those who would like to understand it, who are already favorably disposed toward it, but who don't define random the way you've chosen to.

I'm not interested in semantic games or in being convinced that there is one true definition for random--every dictionary shows otherwise.

Gee, I thought it was too broad- now it's one true definition? Make up your mind. You're not making any sense.

If it was an agreed upon term, this thread would have been a lot shorter.

If you had understood the agreed upon term, you mean.

And the answer is the same for no matter what definition of random you use--the non random aspects of the evolution of this thread are the same for the non-random aspects of evolution itself. If that means there are none--then there are none.

It does, and there aren't. But there is a great deal of order in both.

I would imagine that if one actually wanted to understand the "non-random" terms of evolution he would go with the glossary of the people talking about it.

He did, and presented proof of it, written by the founders of the modern version of your discipline, which you dismissed as being the "old" definition, totally ignoring the fact that that "old" definition is the one that every other science uses.

Basically, you're asking me to accept the fact that you've changed the definition of random, for biology only, from the definition that the founders of your science used, which is the definition that is used in every other science, and I'm telling you that if you do that, you will alienate your peers, or at minimum not be able to talk to them, obviating any possibility of collaboration across disciplines, which just happens to be where all the interesting stuff is happening lately. And all because of randomness, too.

And in biology, when we want to talk about probability distributions we actually use the term "probability distributions" rather than "random". It's just a lot clearer that way.

You don't know what you're talking about. Please review this page. The titles of the papers alone should be enough to stop you dead in your tracks. This isn't coming soon; it's happening now. A revolution is occurring in your very own discipline and you're pretending it's not, or don't know about it. You might try reading this, which appears to be the manifesto of the movement so far; this guy is apparently lecturing at Cornell and the University of Northumbria, and has attracted a following who are pumping papers out like nobody's business.

I wouldn't think they'd go with their own definition that many don't seem to know and that are so broad that roughly everything that contains any randomness is a "random process".

I'd think they'd go with the definition used in the rest of the sciences instead of the imprecise one used by most people. And it looks like not only the founders, but some of the people doing research on the next revolution in your very own backyard think so too.

You are waaaaaayyyyy out on a limb here.

What process is not random by that definition. What process cannot be described by or related to a probability chart. What a useless definition that is for conveying meaning. How obfuscating is it to use random rather than preferential survival or actual probabilities?

What a dumb definition of random you use: "not disordered." Have you no conception of chaos? Have you even heard of this stuff? It's been going on for literally forty years. Stuart Kauffman wrote a book about chaos in biology called At Home In the Universe. Have you read it? Do you have the slightest idea what I'm talking about? It appears not.

You know, I'm beginning to think about this, and wondering if this isn't the establishment pushing down the Young Turks rather than anything to do with the cretinists. When biologists start talking to people who are older than they are, and who study the parent of all the sciences, like they are six-year-olds or cretinists, I have to wonder whether there's not a reactionary thing going on. Convince me I'm wrong. "Evolution is not random" sounds in that light like the last bleating cry as they're swarmed under by the march of chaos theory; we saw the same thing in physics about twenty years back. I suppose it's not that surprising.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Coming in at the tail of a complicated argument is fraught with probability for error.

So here goes...

One question re the above post.
It seems to me randomness (and related terms like causal and chance) can apply at many levels other than the putatively acausal quantum level.

For example- a man leaves home and randomly (or at least unconsciously) chooses one of several routes to walk to work. It starts to rain, due to a Quantum Weather Butterfly swarm last week over the Azores, so he stops at a bus shelter. In the queue is a girl, whom he subsequently marries and here is his grandson, writing a post about randomness on the internet.

At what point in the tale does causality kick in?
Am I writing this because your comments on randomness physically altered things in my head? Yes.
Am I here because the man turned left instead of right? Yes.
Are the quantum fluctuations which gave rise to the bus shelter, responsible for this post? Well, in one sense, yes- but how far can we reasonably trace a causal chain before we admit a random event?
Does it have to be at the subatomic level?
(How big is a thought anyway? An unconscious course change?)

At what point can we discard all events back to the big bang and down to the quantum level and say "macroscopic event x caused event Y and there was nothing random about it?"

A question for another thread , perhaps.

 

[Schneibster]

Coming in at the tail of a complicated argument is fraught with probability for error.

So here goes...

One question re the above post.
It seems to me randomness (and related terms like causal and chance) can apply at many levels other than the putatively acausal quantum level.

Absolutely.

For example- a man leaves home and randomly (or at least unconsciously) chooses one of several routes to walk to work. It starts to rain, due to a Quantum Weather Butterfly swarm last week over the Azores, so he stops at a bus shelter. In the queue is a girl, whom he subsequently marries and here is his grandson, writing a post about randomness on the internet.

You can't model individual interactions with chaos theory. Only ensembles. Individual actions are random, in the common sense of the word.

At what point in the tale does causality kick in?

At the point when a multitude of men meet a multitude of women and some percentage of them get married and have kids.

Am I writing this because your comments on randomness physically altered things in my head? Yes.
Am I here because the man turned left instead of right? Yes.
Are the quantum fluctuations which gave rise to the bus shelter, responsible for this post? Well, in one sense, yes- but how far can we reasonably trace a causal chain before we admit a random event?

Now, that's not a question for me. Articulett gets to handle that one.

Does it have to be at the subatomic level?
(How big is a thought anyway? An unconscious course change?)

At what point can we discard all events back to the big bang and down to the quantum level and say "macroscopic event x caused event Y and there was nothing random about it?"

A question for another thread , perhaps.

Probably, but here goes. Quantum events, considered individually, are truly random. The ensemble of such events is highly deterministic; the events themselves are chaotic.

The point at which the chaotic behavior starts to be orderly is a focus in quantum physics just at the moment, with new ideas, new results, and new cool technology spewing out like the froth from a shaken beer. A whole new world is opening up in physics, and it's being driven by chaos theory. Right now, the concentration is on condensed matter physics. But this has the potential to reach right down into quantum mechanics, the ultimate bastion of the chaos-hating physicists; this has the potential to be spectacular. Careers will be made and broken by this.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What I find amusing is that having asked several of my colleagues (who are physicists, engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists): "Is evolution random?" most come to the opinion that it is not, though has random components. They are all considerably older than 6-years of age.

Selection does not have to be random to evolve order. In fact the selection function has to be less random than the population it is selecting from (over the timer period the selection takes place), or the system does not evolve.

So from my experience, "physical scientists" do get what Articulett is saying, as do lay people who are willing to learn. In fact the only people I've encountered who don't get what she's saying are a few people in this thread.

 

[Meadmaker]

You know, I'm beginning to think about this, and wondering if this isn't the establishment pushing down the Young Turks rather than anything to do with the cretinists. When biologists start talking to people who are older than they are, and who study the parent of all the sciences, like they are six-year-olds or cretinists, I have to wonder whether there's not a reactionary thing going on. Convince me I'm wrong. "Evolution is not random" sounds in that light like the last bleating cry as they're swarmed under by the march of chaos theory; we saw the same thing in physics about twenty years back. I suppose it's not that surprising.

I never thought of that. I had commented that the intensity of the reaction against "random" was unjustified by reality, and called it an US against THEM sort of thing, but perhaps I misidentified the THEM.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What I find amusing is that having asked several of my colleagues (who are physicists, engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists): "Is evolution random?" most come to the opinion that it is not, though has random components. They are all considerably older than 6-years of age.

Selection does not have to be random to evolve order. In fact the selection function has to be less random than the population it is selecting from (over the timer period the selection takes place), or the system does not evolve.

So from my experience, "physical scientists" do get what Articulett is saying, as do lay people who are willing to learn. In fact the only people I've encountered who don't get what she's saying are a few people in this thread.

I think that problem is that these people, as well as the non-randomites of the thread, want to see certain aspects of evolution as being "less random" that other aspects or other processes such as coin flipping and dice rolling. The fact that "random" is a binary signifier (i.e., something is either random or not random); there is no "continuum of randomness" in so far as things can be "more random" or "less random". If a quantity is described by a probability distribution, it is random; if a quantity is not described by a probability distribution, it is not random, pure and simple. Now, this is not to say that, when the variance in the probability distribution is close to zero, which happens when an event is almost certain to happen or when a trial is repeated a very large number of times, there aren't useful and very close approximations that ignore the probability distribution of the quantity under investigation. The quantity is nonetheless still random. Like Meadmaker said, the equations of kinematics are fine for knocking down castle walls, because you are using really large objects at fairly close range with a huge margin. However, if you make a small miscalculation when targeting Belgrade from the Adriatic Sea you end up hitting the Chinese Embassy rather than the Presidential Palace. Thus, whether you treat a fundamentally random process as random depends on the context, but make the underlying process no less random.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The fact that "random" is a binary signifier (i.e., something is either random or not random)

Whiskey tango foxrot?

By this "logic" a metal rod machined to 1 meter in length, within a tolerance of 0.000001 meters is just as random as a gaussian distribution of wear on a monestary's doorstep. The entire field of statistics exists to describe the various sorts of randomness we find in the world around us. Nothing in the real world is as a perfect as it appears on paper. There are random inputs into many systems, including evolution, and there are uncertain outcomes, but "randomness" is not a binary property. Things are not either perfectly described and predicted to infinite degrees of precision, or a jumbled mess.

 

[Meadmaker]

Whiskey tango foxrot?

By this "logic" a metal rod machined to 1 meter in length, within a tolerance of 0.000001 meters is just as random as a gaussian distribution of wear on a monestary's doorstep. The entire field of statistics exists to describe the various sorts of randomness we find in the world around us. Nothing in the real world is as a perfect as it appears on paper. There are random inputs into many systems, including evolution, and there are uncertain outcomes, but "randomness" is not a binary property. Things are not either perfectly described and predicted to infinite degrees of precision, or a jumbled mess.

No, mijo is right. It's a definition thing. Don't try to read too much into it. If it can be described by a probability distribution, it's random. The key to understanding the metal rod is that it is possible to model it as if the length were constant. We can say that it is non-random, even though at a sufficiently small level, we see randomness. As long as you don't care about a micron, then that rod's length is not random. If that micron matters to you, the length of that rod is random.

So, the question is whether the randomness inherent in natural selection is significant, or whether it can be ignored. Does it matter that a beneficial mutation in one individual might not become part of the general genome, because the organism with the mutation might be burned in a fire before that gene can be expressed? To me, it seems that it might matter when you tried to calculate the rate of change in an organism, or the time required to see morphological changes in a species. However, we won't know for certain until we have better models and are able to answer those questions more accurately.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Whiskey tango foxrot?

By this "logic" a metal rod machined to 1 meter in length, within a tolerance of 0.000001 meters is just as random as a gaussian distribution of wear on a monestary's doorstep. The entire field of statistics exists to describe the various sorts of randomness we find in the world around us. Nothing in the real world is as a perfect as it appears on paper. There are random inputs into many systems, including evolution, and there are uncertain outcomes, but "randomness" is not a binary property. Things are not either perfectly described and predicted to infinite degrees of precision, or a jumbled mess.

Anything that is defined by a probability distribution can be considered "random". However, for many applications, variances that are small relative to the measured quantity can be taken to be zero and therefore essentially "non-random".

I think that it is important to note here that there are probability distributions that have infinite or undefined mean and/or variances (e.g., the Cauchy-Lorentz distribution and various Levy distributions) and have been used to model evolution by natural selection (although not by anyone that the non-randomites would consider important); thus, in some cases, it does not even make sense to talk about a distribution having a mean and/or variance that is close to zero.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Anything that is defined by a probability distribution can be considered "random". However, for many applications, variances that are small relative to the measured quantity can be taken to be zero and therefore essentially "non-random".

...for example, when you are explaining some of the important features of evolution

I think that it is important to note here that there are probability distributions that have infinite or undefined mean and/or variances (e.g., the Cauchy-Lorentz distribution and various Levy distributions) and have been used to model evolution by natural selection (although not by anyone that the non-randomites would consider important); thus, in some cases, it does not even make sense to talk about a distribution having a mean and/or variance that is close to zero.

Ok, so some distributions don't have statistical moments defined for them or have moments that are infinite - that just makes the mathematics hard (or easy, depending on what you want to do with the functions).

Have the functions you quoted that have undefined/infinite means and variances been used as selection functions?

Wikipedia has some nice pictures of these distributions here and here.

ETA: Just been thinking about the undefined/infinite mean and variance w.r.t selection functions. A selection function in practice would be required to be truncated. E.g., inifinitely large ears are not an option If you change the limits on the integrals from infinity to finite values, the integrals for mean and variance become definite.

 

[jimbob]

How do you define the variance of the function of the bones of the mamalian inner ear from the reptillian jaw?

Surely the only answer is in some quantification of the genomes?
Ivor, whether a species exists or not is a large and significant factor in my POV. What determines which species will arise is random.

Humanity was not inevitable 8MY ago.

 

[jimbob]

The facts are the same. The definitions are what they are, and they are not the same. There is no single definition accepted across the board by scientists.

You are wrong, and all of the physical sciences prove it conclusively. Do you really want to argue physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, astrophysics, electronics, computer science, and molecular biology with me? I've been avoiding going there, but quite frankly, if you keep this up, that's where we're going, and when we're done, everyone will know you're wrong, whether you admit it or not. I'll give you a taste:

Seconded

In all the sciences, including the life sciences, a random event is that which can only modelled in terms of probabilities and statistics. Identical starting conditions will not always give identical outcomes.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How do you define the variance of the function of the bones of the mamalian inner ear from the reptillian jaw?

Surely the only answer is in some quantification of the genomes?
Ivor, whether a species exists or not is a large and significant factor in my POV. What determines which species will arise is random.

Humanity was not inevitable 8MY ago.

I think I already said that if you consider natural selection over a long enough time scale it will appear (or is, depending on your philosophical position) random, just as the data I process is random. I.e. sample 1 tells me virtually nothing about sample 500. However, samples 1 and 2 give me a really good idea about what sample 3 is going to be. Thus on short time scales the data looks deterministic with a little bit of randomness on top, while on long time scales the data looks completely random.

Whatever has happened was by definition inevitable, but I understand what you mean. It would be better to say Humanity existing 8MY from now is not inevitable (some may estimate a considerably shorter timescale for our demise).

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Seconded

In all the sciences, including the life sciences, a random event is that which can only modelled in terms of probabilities and statistics. Identical starting conditions will not always give identical outcomes.

I don't believe that.

 

[jimbob]

If identical starting conditions do always give identical outcomes, then the event could be pseudorandom, but not random.

Whatever has happened was by definition inevitable, but I understand what you mean. It would be better to say Humanity existing 8MY from now is not inevitable (some may estimate a considerably shorter timescale for our demise).

OK

How about"

"The evolution of humanity and chimps from our last common ancestor depended upon (truly) random factors. This is what I meant by not inevitable." OTOH, I am willing to believe that the CT impact probably was inevitible millions of years before, even if it was unpredictible.

Or do you think that it was just pseudorandom?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm a Determinist. I don't see why, with the knowledge that is available to us, we should assume that what appears random is truly random. That is why I prefer to define random as a qualitative term that expresses our ignorance of a process or its inputs. In my opinion it is a continuous range, from absolutely certain to not-a-clue. E.g., the phrase "a bit random" has some meaning for me.

Is there a theory that explains why creatures that appear to exist in four dimensions (of which only three they can move freely in) should be able to know anything for certain about a 5th, 6th or 7th?

 

[articulett]

What I find amusing is that having asked several of my colleagues (who are physicists, engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists): "Is evolution random?" most come to the opinion that it is not, though has random components. They are all considerably older than 6-years of age.

Selection does not have to be random to evolve order. In fact the selection function has to be less random than the population it is selecting from (over the timer period the selection takes place), or the system does not evolve.

So from my experience, "physical scientists" do get what Articulett is saying, as do lay people who are willing to learn. In fact the only people I've encountered who don't get what she's saying are a few people in this thread.

Thanks. That is my experience too. And I read a lot of Science and converse with a lot of Scientists. Even Sagan (a cosmologist) and Neil Degrasse Tyson (an astronomer) understand why biologist differentiate between the two and do so themselves when discussing evolution. I don't think anything matters when talking to creationist. But I think it's well understood that the wedge strategy shows a vested interest in people in general thinking "science thinks all this complexity arose by chance." Although we do think that--it's an incomplete description, it leaves out the part that allows everybody to see how this can be. When I hear people requesting the "non random" aspects of evolution, I hear them asking how can we get this complexity from chance alone? And the answer is time and selection--survival and reproduction rates are far from equal amongst organisms.

I'm not worried about Biologists and Berkeley and Dawkins and Ridley or anyone else being in big trouble or not conveying the idea correctly, because in my experience--they have conveyed the idea very well to lay people and other scientists across different fields. I'm not worried that I might be missing something, because I understand the awe, as do all biologists, in the fact that chance underlies each and every one of us and all that we observe. But I also feel fortunate to know how-- to understand how the "magic" works--how life could evolve to look like it fits together so well and how we could evolve and presume that the world was made to bring forth us...and to be "in on" this joke (Douglas Adams puddle analogy). Even my dog could presume that same thing... or any roach (should they have the capacity to presume.)

I don't know many physicists so I have no idea if they need a different type of explanation if ithey find it meaningful to say that evolution is random. I don't know if I or others use the word "non-random" when discussing natural selection, but I know that I am successful and conveying the process. I'm not sure if anybody would bother with the word "non-random" or "opposite of chance" in describing natural selection except that creationists have abused the layperson use of that word random to obfuscate. (They also abused the "selfish" in selfish gene saying it couldn't account for morality and altruism. It can; it does.)
Dawkins readily shares what he knows only to have this this sanctimonious obfuscation tossed at him at every turn.

If the question is, "how can Dawkins claim that selection is the "opposite of random chance"--then I think it's a safe bet that he's refuting the common notion of random (a singular event having equal probabilities) to avoid the tornado in the junkyard conclusion. I just don't think any biologist is going to say there is nothing that is non-random about evolution. Even if that means something to a physicist or some people on this thread--it fails to convey the "how" of natural selection and the incremental climbing of "mount improbable".

And because the notion has been used to confuse for so long by so many, I am quite certain most scientists will be very careful in their explanations so that they preclude any jumping to that conclusion. I don't think they are going to care that a few physicists or statisticians are peeved because they are not using the word in the way some of them would prefer. The explanations will evolve and be honed in regards to the best way to convey the information to the most people. Maybe physicists will come up with a way of explaining it in ways that make sense to them...a way that shows how order comes from the chaos--maybe it will catch on. But it appears that most of scientists across the world are on the same page when describing evolution and are speaking the same language and using the terms the same way. Dawkins writings have been translated into many languages, and this is the first complaint I've heard. The Berkeley Site is accessed from around the world. If you think they need a new glossary or that they are using the words wrong or that they are "technically incorrect" you ought to provide something better to them--not me. I find Dawkins' explanations work well with people of all ages and all sorts of scientists. I suspect "non-random" is used only when countering creationist claims-- Preferential selection seems to be clearer and you don't need to play semantic games regarding words. I've heard plenty of scientists say we are here by random chance. But I've never heard one (except for on this thread) say evolution IS random.

It would be interesting to take a poll and find out what percentage of scientists would describe evolution as a "random process"--or maybe to ask how they would describe evolution in regards to the order coming from chaos. Or to ask if they agreed with the statement, "mutations are relatively random, while selection is not." It would be interesting to ask the top physicists and statisticians in their world their opinion on this topic--or just to ask them, what, if anything, was "non-random" about evolution. Or to ask how they would describe evolution to preclude the tornado in a junkyard analogy...

 

[articulett]

I never thought of that. I had commented that the intensity of the reaction against "random" was unjustified by reality, and called it an US against THEM sort of thing, but perhaps I misidentified the THEM.

The reaction against the word "random" is entirely due to creationist abuse of that word to imply that evolution without an intelligent designer is on par with the tornado in the junkyard analogy--as per the many examples provided (particularly the Deepak Chopra one).