What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Meadmaker]

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

That's Deepak's quote, although it isn't original with him.

So, what's the response to that quote? Is it, "It didn't happen randomly, it happened as a result of selection."

That seems like a horrible answer to me, for several reasons. First, selection doesn't help. The DNA still had to get together randomly, but everything that wasn't a step along the road to DNA had to be thrown out. Second, selection is normally thought to apply toward living organisms, and their survival and reproduction. In pre-biotic molecules, we're really talking about stability instead of survival, and throwing "natural selection" into a description about stable molecules is really going to confuse the issue. Third, we really don't know how DNA was assembled, so any claim of any sort that we do know plays into their hands by providing an obviously incorrect answer. It's better to admit ignorance than to be caught covering up ignorance. Fourth, saying selection is required will play into the irreducible complexity argument, because they can respond that there is nothing to select until the entire molecule is assembled. Now you've got a more difficult problem than you started with.

So, if we're trying to get around the 747 in a junkyard argument, saying, "It isn't random." is a lousy way to do it. I think a far, far, better response is to say that it was randomly assembled, but not in a single step.

 

[Schneibster]

You could also try, "most random processes result in order when they are constrained."

 

[Meadmaker]

You could also try, "most random processes result in order when they are constrained."

Agreed.

Hmmm...Maybe you work in, "It's more like saying that a random process can make all the Brazil Nuts rise to the top of the jar."

ETA: Selection really does have to be worked in there somehow. Selection's real role is to throw out all the molecules that don't look designed. Somehow, you have to work in that this random process creates things that look non-random. I'm thinking of your (indirect) example of spiral galaxies. They don't look random, but they are, and they share something with DNA. They share stability. Lots and lots of particles wobbled in lots of directions, but the spiral was a stable configuration, so we see lots of spirals.

Of course, people explaining spiral galaxies have an advantage over people explaining DNA molecules. We can run simulations and show how randomly moving dust particles can turn into spirals. We can't (yet) do the same for DNA.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So, what's the response to that quote? Is it, "It didn't happen randomly, it happened as a result of selection."

That seems like a horrible answer to me, for several reasons.

Unfortunately, it is the correct answer. Evolution is not deterministic, in that no one can predict what the end result will be, but it is systematic, and that system is selection.

 

[Schneibster]

Yep. "Not disorderly."

 

[mijopaalmc]

Unfortunately, it is the correct answer. Evolution is not deterministic, in that no one can predict what the end result will be, but it is systematic, and that system is selection.

Uh...if it's not deterministic, it's "random" in so far as "random" is a synonym for "stochastic", which means "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution". Period. End of sentence, pure and simple. No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

[Meadmaker]

Unfortunately, it is the correct answer. Evolution is not deterministic, in that no one can predict what the end result will be, but it is systematic, and that system is selection.

But I would be curious how you would respond to any of the four objections I raised to that response.

 

[articulett]

"To say the DNA happened randomly is like saying that a hurricane could blow through a junk yard and produce a jet plane."

That's Deepak's quote, although it isn't original with him.

So, what's the response to that quote? Is it, "It didn't happen randomly, it happened as a result of selection."

That seems like a horrible answer to me, for several reasons. First, selection doesn't help. The DNA still had to get together randomly, but everything that wasn't a step along the road to DNA had to be thrown out. Second, selection is normally thought to apply toward living organisms, and their survival and reproduction. In pre-biotic molecules, we're really talking about stability instead of survival, and throwing "natural selection" into a description about stable molecules is really going to confuse the issue. Third, we really don't know how DNA was assembled, so any claim of any sort that we do know plays into their hands by providing an obviously incorrect answer. It's better to admit ignorance than to be caught covering up ignorance. Fourth, saying selection is required will play into the irreducible complexity argument, because they can respond that there is nothing to select until the entire molecule is assembled. Now you've got a more difficult problem than you started with.

So, if we're trying to get around the 747 in a junkyard argument, saying, "It isn't random." is a lousy way to do it. I think a far, far, better response is to say that it was randomly assembled, but not in a single step.

But that is a straw man, because that is not how anyone responds as has been multiply illustrated. They do it like this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

And then they may use similar commentary when talking in general so as to avoid inane commentary like this: Deepak Chopra http://www.beliefnet.com/story/212/story_21246_1.html

But arch materialism is just as superstitious as religion. Someone like Dawkins still believes there are solid objects randomly colliding to haphazardly form more and more complex objects, until over the course of billions of years the universe produced human DNA with its billions of genetic bits.

This view has permeated the public perception of evolution. I suspect Biologists would not be using the word random or non-random in terms of natural selection if it wasn't involved in so many attempts to confuse. As long as your definition or model or word choices lead readily to similar confusions, it's unlikely to find much use. The explanations will evolve using the words, terms, and definitions that convey the information the best.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think that thing you're missing, articulett, is that the way in which creationists use "random" to describe evolution is the straw man whereas the way in which seemingly everyone but a certain group of biologists and creationists uses "random" is not a straw man.

Context is king.

 

[articulett]

I think that thing you're missing, articulett, is that the way in which creationists use "random" to describe evolution is the straw man whereas the way in which seemingly everyone but a certain group of biologists and creationists uses "random" is not a straw man.

Context is king.

A straw man is when people create a caricature of an argument and argue that. MM said, "So, if we're trying to get around the 747 in a junkyard argument, saying, "It isn't random." is a lousy way to do it." Biologists don't say "evolution isn't random". Hence, he was arguing something that was not at issue (a strawman). I pointed out what biologists do say...and the fact that non-random is only used in reference to the common perception of "random". Yes, the creationist use "random" in strawman defintions--but biologists only use non-random in refuting those strawmen definitions.

I did a pretty comprehensive online study of the word random and it's various definitions and I am satisfied that there is no singular agreed upon definition that random means "of or related to a probability distribution". And even if it did, it still would not be useful to say "evolution is related to or could be described by a probability distribution". It might be true; that doesn't make it useful. And we are talking about people in general...not just 6 year olds and scientists but people in general do not share the definition of random that you have.

You are free to use whatever definitions you want for whatever you want to use it for. But as I recall, you wondered why Dawkins used the word as he did--his answer evolved (randomly?) from the creationist abuse of popular understanding of that word. Until or unless a better descriptor comes along or you fill in the details regarding probabilities, I imagine most scientists will convey the information towards the questions asked and the audience addressed. If you think it's wrong, I suggest you come up with something better. So far, your definition doesn't offer much more information than "evolution can be described by a probability distribution". Yes. That is true. Evolution can be described by a probability distribution. Most people try to convey a little more information than that when talking about evolution.

And as far as I can tell, most physicists and statisticians DON'T have a problem with Dawkins descriptors. Perhaps they realize the audience or the reasons for his word choices or the ambiguity inherent in the word random. Until your description conveys how complexity arises from randomness, I'm sure it will be ignored for more descriptive definitions.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What's not useful about evolution being described by a probability distribution, articulett?

 

[articulett]

What's not useful about evolution being described by a probability distribution, articulett?

Unless you are applying the probability distribution, you are just saying "evolution can be described by a probability distribution" per your definition.
What can't be?

Wouldn't you at least define the relative probabilities in relation to randomness?

Are you really up in arms because you think scientists are somehow implying that evolution can't be described by or related to a probability distribution? Their whole use of wording that bothers you is related to people NOT understanding how complexity comes from randomness--from caricatures where people don't distinguish the more random aspects of mutation from the less random components that a are a part of selection. In the Brazil nut example--the nuts go into the can rather randomly--but the way they settle with Brazil nuts on top is less random. Calling the whole thing "random" does nothing to clear up the very reasons biologists are using the terms you don't want them to use to an audience you don't consider yourself to be a part of.

Was your point to understand why they say evolution is non-random or just to make a case that it is random because it can be described by or related to a probability distribution? You have your answer to both.

And truly--not all physicists are on the same page with your definition:

Replication Rules are not random in the sense that, say, Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty or quantum mechanics is sometimes supposed to show the fundamental randomness of reality. They are merely random with respect to natural selection. Natural selection is not random: it is the determinate result of sorting processes according to relative fitness. It is stochastic, in the sense that better engineered features can fail for reasons of probability (they may meet accidents unrelated to their fitness), but that poses no greater threat to the scientific nature of evolution than it does for, say, subatomic physics or information theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

 

[Meadmaker]

But that is a straw man, because that is not how anyone responds as has been multiply illustrated. They do it like this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

What I find funny is that this article doesn't seem to me to be distinguishable from what mijo has been writing.

 

[Schneibster]

"To understand the randomness claimed for evolution by scientists, as opposed to that feared by theologians and moral philosophers, it's important to ask 'random relative to what?'"

Right in the middle of the page.

I don't think I need to quote any more. I think that point is made. I believe the correct terminology is, "hoist by your own petard."

 

[articulett]

Uh...if it's not deterministic, it's "random" in so far as "random" is a synonym for "stochastic", which means "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution". Period. End of sentence, pure and simple. No ifs, ands, or buts.

random isn't really a "synonym" for stochastic-- stochastic is a word for processes that involve random elements. Stochastic process are occasionally referred to as random processes but the word random is not really synonymous with stochastic.

 

[articulett]

"To understand the randomness claimed for evolution by scientists, as opposed to that feared by theologians and moral philosophers, it's important to ask 'random relative to what?'"

Right in the middle of the page.

I don't think I need to quote any more. I think that point is made. I believe the correct terminology is, "hoist by your own petard."

Yes...random relative to what. I think the point is that the question has been answered...there are multiple definitions or random (not a single one) and it depends on the audience. There was nothing that said "evolution is not-random" as MM accused. Nor was there anything saying it was. I suspect some people are having their own conversation here. The thread was about why Biologists would say something is non-random--or what is the evidence for evolution being non random? Right? The page where I or somebody am supposedly hoisted by my petard ends like this:

Some Final Words from the Professionals

Since the first version of this essay, Dawkins published his 1996. Since Dawkins is sometimes represented denying any role in evolution for chance at all, I profer the following quotations:

It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. [Dawkins 1996: 67]

Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance.

Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren't relevant to our discussion because they don't contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better. [Dawkins 1996:70-71]

Dawkins both accepts the role of chance in evolution through mutations and denies, as this FAQ does, that evolution thereby involves deep improbability. The 'quality' he speaks of is what gets selected by natural selection sorting processes.

And to show that Dawkins's views are not just modern revisionism, the final explication must go to GG Simpson, in 1953:

...the effects of any one mutation are limited by the existing gene (or reaction) system in which it occurs. A more profound reorganisation is required to make possible other directions of mutational change.

This sort of limitation and the fact that different mutations may have widely and characteristically different rates of incidence show that mutations are not random in the full and usual sense of the word or in the way that some early Darwinists considered as fully random the variation available for natural selection. I believe that the, in this sense, nonrandom nature of mutation has had a profound influence on the diversity of life and on the extent and character of adaptations. This influence is sometimes overlooked, probably because almost everyone speaks of mutations as random, which they are in other senses of the word. ...

(In other words...not even mutations are truly random.)

I have no dog in this race. My only contention is that there IS no single agreed upon definition in science and that various ways are used to describe things and that when "non-random" or "opposite of chance" is used to explain natural selection it is almost always in reference to a mischarachterization --that is, it is addressed to people who have the common definition in mind.

What point is it that you imagine has been made? I thought your whole point was there is one way to define random and it's wrong to say evolution is non- random. If that was your point, I'm not sure that quote does it. But maybe I missed your point. I thought Meadmakers point was that creationists don't use this strawman or that biologists don't address it right. At first I thought Mijo wanted to understand why evolutionists would say that natural selection is not random--but now I guess he wants them to agree that evolution is random... But, as is clear, there is no singular definition of random--moreover there are degrees to randomness. So I think that you will continue to be in the minority in calling evolution random with the meaning that "evolution can be described by a probability chart". It seems ambiguous and relatively useless as a definition of evolution to me. But then again, some seem to have an entirely different perception as to what this thread is about. And it appears to be about winning or losing in some way.

okie dokie...I will back out now and let you boys have your victory celebration.

 

[mijopaalmc]

random isn't really a "synonym" for stochastic-- stochastic is a word for processes that involve random elements. Stochastic process are occasionally referred to as random processes but the word random is not really synonymous with stochastic.

Uh...yes it is.

ran·dom (răn'dəm)
adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:

at random

1. Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

sto·chas·tic (stō-kăs'tĭk)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characterized by conjecture; conjectural.
2. Statistics.

• Involving or containing a random variable or variables: stochastic calculus.
• Involving chance or probability: a stochastic stimulation.

I have been explicit that I have been using "random" and "stochastic" as synonyms (i.e., "[a] word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language", emphasis mine) in so far as the bold red definitions are nearly the same as each other, and not in any other sens of the words.

 

[articulett]

Deepak says:

But arch materialism is just as superstitious as religion. Someone like Dawkins still believes there are solid objects randomly colliding to haphazardly form more and more complex objects, until over the course of billions of years the universe produced human DNA with its billions of genetic bits.

Isn't calling evolution random pretty much identical?--or at least supportive of such a conclusion? (And btw, meadmaker...you seem to be a bit behind on what we know in regards to abiogenesis...we do know why some chains stick better when fluid washes over mineral surfaces...and we do know how RNA precursors can spontaneously assemble with the right inputs...)

Of course, I'm beginning to think I'm not even on the same planet...

And no MM, there is nothing on that page that sounds like mijo who just seems to be saying "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random". There's not even anyone saying "evolution IS random". They talk about relative randomness (more or less random) and they define random in several different ways including the quotes of physicists...but none seem to be defining it as mijo does.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You could also try, "most random processes result in order when they are constrained."

Apart from a roulette wheel. Or a lottery ball picker.

 

[articulett]

Uh...yes it is.




I have been explicit that I have been using "random" and "stochastic" as synonyms (i.e., "[a] word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or other words in a language", emphasis mine) in so far as the bold red definitions are nearly the same as each other, and not in any other sens of the words.

Oh mijo--a math problem with random variables is not the same as a "random math problem"-- But it's fine. I understand. You mean "described by or relating to a probability distribution" no matter which word you are using.