What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

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

or tornadoes going through junkyards.

 

[Schneibster]

I spent an hour writing a rebuttal that quoted every sentence in that post. It was typical Schneibster. You would not have been at all happy. I've decided that's not the right way to proceed. I have numbered you among friends, and maybe sometime that will be so again. I have only two responses to make:

But maybe I missed your point.

I am sorry, but this amply and richly deserves

GEE, YA THINK?!!??!?!?

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

That ain't gonna happen. I'm not happy in any way, and I'm not celebrating anything. I'm disappointed, quite frankly.

 

[mijopaalmc]

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.

And evolution is "random" in that sense, which is not a meaningless descriptor.

 

[Schneibster]

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

Tell it to the house, which wins both games. Games of chance don't exist. Suckers do.

 

[mijopaalmc]

May I suggest that those of us who haven't taken a course in probability theory (which would apparently include articulett) or those of us who want to review basic probability theory read Janos Galambos' Introductory Probability Theory and return to this discussion of the "randomness" of evolution.

 

[articulett]

This is basically over, articulett. You're cherry-picking; if you want to respond, respond to my long post. I took your post apart, line by line. If you've got a response, now's the time.

I don't know what your point is. I think it's that randomness just means one thing in science...and I'm guess that thing is "related to or described by a probability distribution." But you haven't provided evidence for that, and everything I see, including physics texts don't use that definition. You and MM are the only one's I see having problems with Dawkins definition--and Mijo, but he's on a whole different page. And even MM seems to understand that there are degrees of randomness or a selection process of some sort should be distinguished from the initial randomness in some way. Every thing physical has at least the constraint of physical laws on it. Clearly Deepak is missing something in his definition...so is anybody who just says evolution is random...it's too ambiguous to have meaning--random relevant to what? I only see probability distributions used in reference to more or less random... I don't know of anyone one who uses random to describe anything that culd be described by a probability distribution. Really. You are the only one. To me, it seems that then everything is random and the word is useless...it's subject to Deepak abuse. I know you think I'm not reading you carefully or "getting it", but I feel the same way. I don't think we are even having the same conversation.

I thought I was just offering insight as to why biologists say mutations are random (more or less) while selection is not (more or less). Mutations are random in relation to selection. Neither are completely random in that they both have physical causes. But in some cases the former, it's just "noise", in the latter, the physical environment selects the contenders for the next generation.

 

[Schneibster]

It might be a good idea to review James Gleick's Chaos: The Making of a New Science for the less mathematically minded. It's rather aside from the point you're making, mijo; then again, it's the point I was interested in pretty much the whole time. Not to say I didn't get yours or thought it was wrong; just that I have my own take on it.

 

[articulett]

May I suggest that those of us who haven't taken a course in probability theory (which would apparently include articulett) or those of us who want to review basic probability theory read Janos Galambos' Introductory Probability Theory and return to this discussion of the "randomness" of evolution.

I have. As mentioned before, relative randomness is used (more or less random), but otherwise we use specifics when referring to probability distributions. We don't tell people that their odds are random of having a child with a specific disorder, because that is useless... even though it could be true if it means "the chance of your child having a disorder is based on a probability distribution".

If you can't tell why that is a useless, meaningless thing to say, then maybe you ought to take a course in communication. What you are saying, seems equally useless in regards to evolution.

 

[mijopaalmc]

We don't tell people that their odds are random of having a child with a specific disorder

Of course we don't because the odds (i.e., probabilities) are defined by the probability measure on the sigma-algebra of subsets of the sample space which maps each element in the sigma-algebra to a point on the closed interval [0,1]. In laymans' terms, the probabilities are numbers defined by the relative frequency of occurrence.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you do need to review Galambos' book.

 

[articulett]

I spent an hour writing a rebuttal that quoted every sentence in that post. It was typical Schneibster. You would not have been at all happy. I've decided that's not the right way to proceed. I have numbered you among friends, and maybe sometime that will be so again. I have only two responses to make:

I am sorry, but this amply and richly deserves

GEE, YA THINK?!!??!?!?

That ain't gonna happen. I'm not happy in any way, and I'm not celebrating anything. I'm disappointed, quite frankly.

Well me too. Your rebuttal was all about there being this one definition of random and the beauty was that physicists understood this definition and so, of course, they think Dawkins is lying-- I understand the beauty and intricacy of chaos theory and the butterfly wing and the complete and utter unpredictability of it all too. But, you seem to be the only physicist that has your particular definition of random which you feel is the true one... This physicist doesn't:

> This question has been haunting me ever since I developed an interest for quantum dynamics.

> In indeterminism, everything is supposed to be more or less "random". However, it is not clear what the term means. In everyday life, "random" just means "depending on an awful lot of practically unmeasurable factors". In that sense, rolling dice or tossing coins produces "random" outcomes. So, the more factors that need to be taken into account, the more "random" results we get.

> So far, so good... but whenever indeterminists refer to "random" phenomena, they seem to imply that they don't depend on any factors *at all*! Wouldn't that produce a single outcome in every case? I mean, if something doesn't depend on anything, then it is constant...right?

> Could someone shed a little light here? Is there an acceptable definition of "random"?

GOOD question! Webster says,"random: Being or relating to a set whose numbers have an equal probability of occurring." In physics, substitute "situation" for "set", "values" for "numbers". In a random physical situation, all possible values of the pertinent parameters are equally probable. There is no such thing as "quasi" or "pseudo" random. A situation is random or it isn't. A random situation is always random except if influenced by another,external, determinate situation. If the atoms in a "closed system" have random velocities, they will always have random velocities. Of course, there actually is no such thing as a true "closed system". Many physicists play fast and loose with "random", which can lead to dubious conclusions. It may be that there actually is no such thing as a true random situation

And I don't see any other physicists having problems with Dawkins' wording. I don't even seeing them having the same definition that you have. Yes, order does come from randomness--via constraints...natural selection is quite a constraint...which is why that particular constraint is emphasized over the random elements in it--not so physicists won't understand it--it's to address the ambiguity associated with the word random-- that's it. There are random processes that are like what Behe and Deepak are describing and there are random processes that are connected to each other and result in complexity and order... especially once a duplication mechanism is in place--then you have exponential "order" capabilities.

And if you are disappointed I am too. Because I understand both why someone can call evolution random, and why others might go through the trouble of describing how the order comes from the more random aspects.
I have wasted a lot of words, and you and Mijo only seem capable of understanding the former. You think there is one definition for random and it's the definition that all sciences and most people use. Not so. Some things are much more probable than others and when you just say something is random you imply equal probabilities--not something exponential--something with sticking and complexity building factor. Until you can incorporate that into your definition, then to most people, it will be as informative as Deepak's statement. Maybe it won't be when talking to physicists...I don't know. But you are the first physicist I know to have a particular bugaboo about referring to evolution as "non-random" or the "opposite of chance" other than creationists. It IS cool that this all came about via chance events upon chance event...that if the first prokaryote didn't merge that day long ago with another...then all of life as we know it would not exist. But evolution is more than just a bunch of those kind of chance events-- it's also important to understand the constraints that winnowed the variety of life we see today...to distinguish the how --how order arose--how one event is connected to another...what exasperates me is that you see no need to do that...no desire to...it takes away the wonder or you don't feel like people are describing it right or that we really need to teach people what randomness is and that order comes from it all the time.

Well, Dawkins shows people how order comes from randomness. He makes it salient for many people. Maybe this other book will work better for some or for physicists, I don't know. Maybe stochastic models will be the bees knees in describing evolution.

And I don't know why you need to rebut me or hoist me by my petard. There is no winner or loser is there? There is one truth that is the same for everybody and we're talking about the best way to convey understanding of that truth to people. Clearly, there are room for lots of ways...and clearly the better ways will evolve based on what works and the environment the explainer finds themselves in. Whether I jump aboard the "evolution is random" bandwagon is irrelevant. I'm just given you a heads up as to why I don't think the explanations are going in that direction. The word random just has too much ambiguity associated with us. I'm not even sure what definition you are using--unpredictable? chance? "described by a probability distribution". You don't seem to be using the same definition as the physicist above.

 

[Schneibster]

And you STILL don't get it. It is a common fallacy to assert that random means all outcomes are equally probable. You're still using that definition in a conversation with at least one person who you know for certain knows better. It's insulting.

 

[articulett]

duplicate

 

[articulett]

And you STILL don't get it. It is a common fallacy to assert that random means all outcomes are equally probable. You're still using that definition in a conversation with at least one person who you know for certain knows better. It's insulting.

I got that definition from a physicist on a physics forum--see above.

Ya' think you might be the only one who thinks there is one true definition for the word random amongst scientists? I do.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well me too. Your rebuttal was all about there being this one definition of random and the beauty was that physicists understood this definition and so, of course, they think Dawkins is lying-- I understand the beauty and intricacy of chaos theory and the butterfly wing and the complete and utter unpredictability of it all too. But, you seem to be the only physicist that has your particular definition of random which you feel is the true one... This physicist doesn't:


And I don't see any other physicists having problems with Dawkins' wording. I don't even seeing them having the same definition that you have. Yes, order does come from randomness--via constraints...natural selection is quite a constraint...which is why that particular constraint is emphasized over the random elements in it--not so physicists won't understand it--it's to address the ambiguity associated with the word random-- that's it. There are random processes that are like what Behe and Deepak are describing and there are random processes that are connected to each other and result in complexity and order... especially once a duplication mechanism is in place--then you have exponential "order" capabilities.

And if you are disappointed I am too. Because I understand both why someone can call evolution random, and why others might go through the trouble of describing how the order comes from the more random aspects.
I have wasted a lot of words, and you and Mijo only seem capable of understanding the former. You think there is one definition for random and it's the definition that all sciences and most people use. Not so. Some things are much more probable than others and when you just say something is random you imply equal probabilities--not something exponential--something with sticking and complexity building factor. Until you can incorporate that into your definition, then to most people, it will be as informative as Deepak's statement. Maybe it won't be when talking to physicists...I don't know. But you are the first physicist I know to have a particular bugaboo about referring to evolution as "non-random" or the "opposite of chance" other than creationists. It IS cool that this all came about via chance events upon chance event...that if the first prokaryote didn't merge that day long ago with another...then all of life as we know it would not exist. But evolution is more than just a bunch of those kind of chance events-- it's also important to understand the constraints that winnowed the variety of life we see today...to distinguish the how --how order arose--how one event is connected to another...what exasperates me is that you see no need to do that...no desire to...it takes away the wonder or you don't feel like people are describing it right or that we really need to teach people what randomness is and that order comes from it all the time.

Well, Dawkins shows people how order comes from randomness. He makes it salient for many people. Maybe this other book will work better for some or for physicists, I don't know. Maybe stochastic models will be the bees knees in describing evolution.

And I don't know why you need to rebut me or hoist me by my petard. There is no winner or loser is there? There is one truth that is the same for everybody and we're talking about the best way to convey understanding of that truth to people. Clearly, there are room for lots of ways...and clearly the better ways will evolve based on what works and the environment the explainer finds themselves in. Whether I jump aboard the "evolution is random" bandwagon is irrelevant. I'm just given you a heads up as to why I don't think the explanations are going in that direction. The word random just has too much ambiguity associated with us. I'm not even sure what definition you are using--unpredictable? chance? "described by a probability distribution". You don't seem to be using the same definition as the physicist above.

Oh cute, now you're repeating yourself.

Given that the duplicate post occurred a half hour after the original, it is safe to that it wasn't an accidental double post.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I got that definition from a physicist on a physics forum--see above.

Ya' think you might be the only one who thinks there is one true definition for the word random amongst scientists? I do.

Yet it still has to do with probability.

 

[articulett]

Of course we don't because the odds (i.e., probabilities) are defined by the probability measure on the sigma-algebra of subsets of the sample space which maps each element in the sigma-algebra to a point on the closed interval [0,1]. In laymans' terms, the probabilities are numbers defined by the relative frequency of occurrence.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you do need to review Galambos' book.

I do know what you are talking about. So why don't you describe evolution in regard to probabilities instead of just saying "evolution can be describe by a probability distribution". After all, so can the information we give genetic counseling patients. It's useless unless you actually USE the probabilities. Your saying evolution is random is like telling a client, your odds of having a child with Down Syndrome are random. It's meaningless. Sure it's "true"--it COULD be described by a probability distribution after all. Instead we say the actual odds based on their age, tri level markers, and other information if we have it! Get that information if you want your definition to have that sort of meaning. When you say evolution is random you are being as informative as me saying, "Your having a child with Down Syndrome is random". Is that meaningful in anyway? Why in the world do you think it's meaningful to describe evolution that way?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Probabilities are not random.

Things described by probabilities are random.

I will attempt a more technical description with examples later on.

 

[articulett]

Oh cute, now you're repeating yourself.

Given that the duplicate post occurred a half hour after the original, it is safe to that it wasn't an accidental double post.

No, I'm trying to finish up a paper for a class tomorrow and have multiple tabs open. Why would I purposely repeat myself?

I'm using a router so sometimes I press send, and then the connection goes out, so it looks like it wasn't sent... so I press send when I go back to that tab again and I notice that it wasn't sent.

Do you imagine I think I'm winning points by saying the most? I am not trying to win anything. I understand why you say evolution is random, and I understand why other people say it. I also understand why Dawkins makes a point to say selection is not random. I also think I have a pretty good grasp why you won't be seeing any scientists running around saying "evolution is random" soon. I also think I have a better understanding than you do regarding the ambiguity of the word random across the sciences. (I don't even think you and Schneibster are using the same definition.)

Yes, having a child with Down Syndrome is random--it's a relatively random occurrence--but when you factor in age, sonogram findings, triple marker screening levels, then you can assess risk differently--further...more descriptively. If you want your definition of evolution being random to mean more than "it can be described by a probability distribution", you ought to fill in that data. Or not. Maybe you don't care if you are being vague or maybe you plan to discuss this issue with physicists and statisticians and claim the "true definition". Or maybe you think the additional data is implied or that it can be filled in later by using ordered rather than "non-random". I have lost track of your whole aim in this thread.

 

[articulett]

Tell it to the house, which wins both games. Games of chance don't exist. Suckers do.

They win because the pay off is not 1 to 1 -- the results are still random and disordered and constrained within the system that they are in. Each result is (relatively) equally likely--but we aren't using that definition of random, are we. What's the definition you're using again?

 

[articulett]

Yet it still has to do with probability.

Indeed: It says "In a random physical situation, all possible values of the pertinent parameters are equally probable". Equally probable probabilities.