What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Walter Wayne]

If position is NOT important than a fish should do as well as land as in the sea right?

I already pointed this out but since no-one is paying any attention I am not surprised people keep on banging away at the same points.

You're not honestly saying that because I define the environment of two adjacent unhatched birds as being the same that I must define their environment as the same as a fishes are you?

Ah, so fish should be doing as well on land as in the sea then.

See just above.

Um, that's not a narrow definition of environment, it's a precise one.

It's both.

Walt

 

[articulett]

If position is NOT important than a fish should do as well as land as in the sea right?

I already pointed this out but since no-one is paying any attention I am not surprised people keep on banging away at the same points.



Ah, so fish should be doing as well on land as in the sea then.



Um, that's not a narrow definition of environment, it's a precise one.

They can't hear it. I guess they don't really read or absorb info. that is contrary to their view. They're doing the same on the religion/child abuse thread--I suspect religion is responsible for their inability to "get it".

Moreover, they all keep saying that I said evolution is non-random...when I have said that Dawkins says natural selection is non random compared to the more random aspects of mutations (which is also not completely random). I repeatedly have pointed out that the only time non-random is used in the explanation of evolution is to clear up the creationist canard of "scientists think this all happened by random chance". Randomness plays a role--but, as in the nozzle example, natural selection works the miracles. They just keep confusing random aspects that affect the environment with having a "random effect" so that they can say "evolution is random" which is identical to the creationist obfuscating point.

Thanks for the support. At least it's not my communication skills. It truly is because they can't hear.

They do that on the other thread too--they mischaracterize what others say and have a fit if people don't read them with careful attention (attention they don't give to anyone else.) They are religious apologists from my perspective.

The opening question was about the evidence for evolution being non-random--about Dawkins characterizing natural selection as such (in response to the "tornado in the junkyard analogy")--but no matter how carefully you explain it or how many examples you give them, to them, it always boils down to "evolution is random" with all the ambiguity inherent in that term. It's a useless way to describe evolution, and allows for the stupid creationist canard. The main point of the wedge strategy is to obfuscate understanding of natural selection so that it all seems "impossible". I can't tell if they truly "don't get it" or if they are "being Behe".

 

[articulett]

There are over 200 million sperm per ejaculate. Many are as fit as any other by any human standard. But the vast majority never fertilize any egg or pass on their DNA--some don't swim fast, some go up the wrong tube, some never get near a fertile woman, some try to fertilize the vaginal wall, some help dissolve the protective layer of the egg but aren't the first one in--and only one makes it in. And if it's DNA is good enough to make a healthy embryo that embryo survives and carries whatever genetic traits helped that may have helped that sperm succeed (being one of millions, strong sex drive, attraction to fertile mates, being attractive to fertile mates, etc.).

You guys are confusing all the randomness involved with the non-fertilization of the others with the process which allowed the one to actually fertilize the egg and thus become "the fittest". Fitness only is about what DOES work. As in the nozzle example, not every possible combination is tried, and only the ones that do work better than than the parents are "selected". Information changes at random. Information that aids in any organism being selected is preferentially passed on.

The blueprint must make an organism before it can be selected (not killed off...allowed to "reproduce") It isn't selected randomly--it's selected by virtue of passing all elimination rounds presented.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Randomness plays a role--but, as in the nozzle example, natural selection works the miracles. They just keep confusing random aspects that affect the environment with having a "random effect" so that they can say "evolution is random" which is identical to the creationist obfuscating point.

I thought you might be getting it, when you at least moved from selection builds complexity to selection shapes complexity. But again you give natural selection the headlining roles when you say, but natural selection works the miracles.

Again, natural selection can only filter from what it already has. Each of these miracles happened due to mutation and heredity. Natural selection need the starting material. To downplay one over the other is not to understand the interplay between the two in process, and you have done that when you said "Randomness plays a role -but, ..., natural selection works the miracles.

You do realize that when the engineers played with the model that they chose their starting points for a reason don't you. And the quality of those starting points was key in the quality of the end result.

As long as you resort so quickly to characterizing people with opposing positions as creationists, religious apologists or that religion is responsible for their inability to "get it", expect to call you for arguing dishonestly as you have.

It is neither your communication skills or because we can't hear. It is that your argument is faulty.

Walt

 

[articulett]

I thought you might be getting it, when you at least moved from selection builds complexity to selection shapes complexity. But again you give natural selection the headlining roles when you say, but natural selection works the miracles.

Again, natural selection can only filter from what it already has. Each of these miracles happened due to mutation and heredity. Natural selection need the starting material. To downplay one over the other is not to understand the interplay between the two in process, and you have done that when you said "Randomness plays a role -but, ..., natural selection works the miracles.

You do realize that when the engineers played with the model that they chose their starting points for a reason don't you. And the quality of those starting points was key in the quality of the end result.

As long as you resort so quickly to characterizing people with opposing positions as creationists, religious apologists or that religion is responsible for their inability to "get it", expect to call you for arguing dishonestly as you have.

It is neither your communication skills or because we can't hear. It is that your argument is faulty.

Walt

Ugh... Nobody denies the random part. It's the easy part. It's the part everybody understands. It's the part creationists use to make evolution sound "impossible"--e.g. "scientists think this all came about by random chance". It's natural selection that nobody seems to understand or work into their definitions. It's natural selection which makes seeming design from the randomness. When people ask questions as they did in the OP, biologists generally answer in the many ways that have been quoted but some people don't seem to understand. No biologist is saying that it's informative to say evolution is random or non-random. They will say natural selection is non random (or the opposite of chance) when compared to the randomness of mutation.

Randomness in general refers to each option having equal probabilities, and so, therefore, even mutation is not truly random...but it's random enough for purposes of understanding the principle. By comparison selection is far less random in that it is entirely determined by what does survive and reproduce.

I don't care what is more or less important--I'm saying that summing up evolution as random is ambiguous and leaves out an understanding of natural selection in such a way that it is identical to the creationist canard.

That is what biologists mean and what they are doing should they happen to describe natural selection as non-random or the important part that makes the impossible suddenly and obviously possible. It's the part that people have trouble getting. It's the part that is left out of your definitions. You play semantic games to avoid even acknowledging this. Or you just don't "get" it.

And yes, I'm aware of all of the things you state...as you would know if you read my posts...and the posts of other biologists linked. Its you who seem to lack understanding of natural selection, and I have said nothing dishonest in my argument. You confuse opinion with fact, play semantic games, accused me of defining evolution as "non-random" (I never did...read again), and fail to convey any understanding of natural selection and how the random components of it do not make it random itself--certainly not random in the same way mutations are random. Calling evolution random, as you do, is full of ambiguity and as meaningless as calling a math problem random because it contains random variables.

Please quote any dishonest statement of mine. You were dishonest in saying that I want to call evolution "non random". And in regards to the faultiness of my argument, your examples do not convey it. You show a profound lack of understanding in regards to natural selection, how it works, how important it is, and how it is far more "determined" than the "relative randomness" of mutation. You have also failed to acknowledge that calling evolution random is identical to the creationist canard and uninformative if not misleading.

Most biologists do not even use non-random except to address the confusions you are making--you confusing random components that affect selection with the process itself. You are calling the sieve random and using artifacts of the sieve to support this definition in order to confuse the basic principle (random mutation coupled with natural selection) or (modificatin with descent) or cyborg's definiton or preferential survival.

All of these are more descriptive in regards to evolution than to say there is "no evidence that evolution is 'non-random'" or "evoution is random". Those are very poor descriptors because they gloss over natural selection.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Ugh... Nobody denies the random part. It's the easy part. It's the part everybody understands. It's the part creationists use to make evolution sound "impossible"--e.g. "scientists think this all came about by random chance". It's natural selection that nobody seems to understand or work into their definitions. It's natural selection which makes seeming design from the randomness. When people ask questions as they did in the OP, biologists generally answer in the many ways that have been quoted but some people don't seem to understand. No biologist is saying that it's informative to say evolution is random or non-random. They will say natural selection is non random (or the opposite of chance) when compared to the randomness of mutation.

Actually, they don't say when compared to the randomness of mutation. In fact they have gone so far as to say "Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random."

They is no qualification about one particular meaning of it, and goes so far as say quintessentially non-random, and not non-random compared to mutation. He goes so far as to say "Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly." Implicit in that is that natural selection is not chance, random.

Randomness in general refers to each option having equal probabilities, and so, therefore, even mutation is not truly random...but it's random enough for purposes of understanding the principle. By comparison selection is far less random in that it is entirely determined by what does survive and reproduce.

Dawkins and no other biologist I know of make such a distinction as seen in the first bolded selection. I'd appreciate I citation.

The second selection says: Selection is determined by what does survive and reproduce. ... But a roll of a die is determined by what face comes up. A chess game is determined by who mates the opposing king. One is random, one isn't.

I don't care what is more or less important--I'm saying that summing up evolution as random is ambiguous and leaves out an understanding of natural selection in such a way that it is identical to the creationist canard.

No one is summing up evolution as random, anymore than admitting that humans are mammals is summing up as humans as mammals. It is one quality, and the story doesn't end there.

That is what biologists mean and what they are doing should they happen to describe natural selection as non-random or the important part that makes the impossible suddenly and obviously possible. It's the part that people have trouble getting. It's the part that is left out of your definitions.

I have not left out that natural selection shapes what we see today by any meands. You play semantic games to avoid even acknowledging this. Or you just don't "get" it.

And yes, I'm aware of all of the things you state...as you would know if you read my posts...and the posts of other biologists linked.

I read your posts and they repeatedly refered to natural selection building up complexity or creating the miracle. If you understand otherwise it is your language.

Its you who seem to lack understanding of natural selection, and I have said nothing dishonest in my argument.

Please point a post where I make an erroneous statement about the characteristics of natural selection.

You confuse opinion with fact, play semantic games, accused me of defining evolution as "non-random" (I never did...read again), and fail to convey any understanding of natural selection and how the random components of it do not make it random itself--certainly not random in the same way mutations are random.

I never called it random the same way mutations are random. I called it random, which is correct.

Calling evolution random, as you do, is full of ambiguity and as meaningless as calling a math problem random because it contains random variables.

That only applies if we really were summing up evolution as random. Again, it is random, that is not the entire story.

Please quote any dishonest statement of mine. You were dishonest in saying that I want to call evolution "non random".

You implying that I was summing up evolution as random is one. You were dishonest when you labelled me a creationist. You were debating dishonestly when you hypothesized that my religion was getting in the way of my reasoning ... when I am atheist. Really I have only had that accusation from theists before.

I will withdraw my accusation that you defined evolution as "non-random". I may have been hasty there, and I can not check in a timely fashion as the search function isn't working for me.

And in regards to the faultiness of my argument, your examples do not convey it. You show a profound lack of understanding in regards to natural selection, how it works, how important it is, and how it is far more "determined" than the "relative randomness" of mutation. You have also failed to acknowledge that calling evolution random is identical to the creationist canard and uninformative if not misleading.

Given the qualities of random processes we have discussed, I don't see how you can see it as identical to the creationist canard unless you are being willfully obtuse. I have mentioned several times the difference between random and boeing 747 in a junk-yard. As for my lack of understanding, you have made several long posts telling us what we already knew, then through such misguided ideas as characterizing selection as creative process and defining it in a circular manner so as to make it non-random. The descriptions show only that you have read similar books to those I have, but when you step outside their narative you make statements that do not follow from them.

Most biologists do not even use non-random except to address the confusions you are making--you confusing random components that affect selection with the process itself. You are calling the sieve random and using artifacts of the sieve to support this definition in order to confuse the basic principle (random mutation coupled with natural selection) or (modificatin with descent) or cyborg's definiton or preferential survival.

Natural selection is no kitchen sieve. It can serve as a good analogy in that it filters, but is poor in terms of the results.

All of these are more descriptive in regards to evolution than to say there is "no evidence that evolution is 'non-random'" or "evoution is random". Those are very poor descriptors because they gloss over natural selection.

Several paragraphs being more descriptive than a sentence. It should be.

The issue is whether we should be honest and call it random in the context of a longer discussion or lesson. We should, it is correct, even if it is ambiguous on its own.

 

[articulett]

That's not the issue until there is an agreed upon definition of random. Several have stated that there is one agreed upon in the sciences...and no one has provided it...or at least they don't all seem to agree on mijo's definition (relating to or described by a probability chart) and that definition is so vague that it makes the evolution of everything random...including artificial selection and the nozzle example...and hence it is useless. Moreover, everyone who has called natural selection non-random, is doing so specifically in response to the creationist popular understanding of random as willy nilly--or having equal probability--and/or unconnected past or future events.

So why would you not use this definition when complaining about the very reason they employ the word "non-random"? The whole idea is to make evolution sound so unlikely that a designer seems more probable--especially since it all seems to fit together. Of course it seems to fit together...that's what natural selection does! Once a person understands natural selection it becomes the obvious answer--which is why creationists go out of their way to obfuscate using the term "random" and/or "chance".

And you do realize, that the more copies a particular strand of DNA makes of itself, the more opportunities there is for random mutations (beneficial or otherwise)--correct? So in order for any of the randomness that needs occur to "evolve" the genome, the DNA must get in vector that copies it--the more vectors it gets in that successfully copy it the more chances it has for mutations to occur along that bit of info. That is, it MUST be selected before any randomness can occur. The info. must create an organism capable or reproducing before it's randomness can be any part of the equation...just as the nozzle adjustments have to actually be produced in nozzles before any further changes can occur. Potential changes never expressed in nozzles can't be selected. Not because they are "less fit"--but because they never made an organism upon which such modifications could happen.

Anything in the DNA that happens to have anything to do with having that organism reproduce is preferentially passed on...the more it aided it's vectors reproductive success, the more copies you are likely to see in the next generation.

The nozzles could not be selected until their randomness was expressed in design form and the design form passed the elimination round which in this case was "perform better than the prior generation". DNA is the same, but the elimination round is entirely about how many copies of a given strand of DNA getting into replicating vehicles--No randomness matters in regards to evolution if the DNA cannot or does not get copied--"random mutations" and recombinations only count if they build replicators that survive to replicate. THAT is selection. That is the selection process that "drives", "guides", "molds", or is responsible for the incremental change in genomes which differentiate species through time. It's a blind algorhithmic selection--does this info. build an organism that can replicate--then it's selected for the next elimination round Not randomly selected...selected because it survived...selected again if it replicates.

Your examples are like referring to nozzle changes that could have worked just as well but were never made so they could never be selected and therefore the selection process can rightfully be called random in the nozzle example. And I suppose that maybe by your definition of random it can be. But that means your definition is too loose to be useful. Or that everything can be called random as long as you can somehow describe it by a probability chart with no distinguishment between more or less random. You just confuse the relative randomness of mutation with random components that affect selection. In understanding the principle of evolution, those latter random components are not relevant--what gets copied the most is.

You are defining fitness in terms of what you think of as fit...or even what fitness is in a genome. But fitness refers to every factor that allows some organisms to preferentially survive and reproduce while others don't. Genetic fitness is only that which is in the genome that contributed to any given reproducers success. That's it. Everything in the environment are sieves or elimination rounds so long as they influence the survival or reproduction of any DNA vector while eliminating others. Whether you think they are random because they are unpredictable or "chance" or seem random...is irrelevant to in regards to describing the selective process. Certainly you'd say that the designs were changed randomly in the nozzle example, and so lots of designs could have been left out or artifacts could bias the result of nozzle evolution, correct? But the evolution of the nozzles wasn't random and it would be misleading to call it that...nor was the selection process random...and it would be misleading to call it that.

Until you provide the "correct" definition of random and why you think it's the correct one and why you think Dawkins et. al. were speaking to an audience with your definition in mind--I think calling natural selection random is vague and misleading at best. In fact, by some definitions I've seen in physics books, nothing is truly "random"--mutations less so...but "close enough" for understanding the principle of evolution in regards to mutation.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

There is an agreed upon definition of "random", and it is "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution". The definition "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" is merely a special case, and nothing more. The reason it is such a common definition is that before probability theory was axiomatized through set theory in the 1940's and 1950's by Andrey Kolmogorov, the most common instances of its application were for gambling where it was essential that, for a game to be "fair", all outcomes had to be equally likely. This is the way probability is taught in precollege mathematics, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it simply isn't the whole story.

In axiomatized probability theory, there are object called probability space that consist of a set known as the sample space, a collection of subsets of that set called a sigma algebra the elements of which are called events, and a measure that maps each element of the sigma-algebra to a point on the closed interval [0,1] following the axioms of probability. Random variables are measurable functions that map events in the sample space to events in another set called the state space, which are elements in the sigma-algebra on the state space. A probability distribution is a measure on the state space that maps each event in the state space to a point on the real line or subset thereof.

In the case of discrete uniform probability, the measure on the sample space maps each event in the sample space to the same point on [0,1] such that the sum of all the probabilities sum to 1.

I realize that my explanation is a bit slapdash. For a fuller and more careful description, I would suggest that you read this site and the first chapter in Janos Galambos' book Introductory Probability Theory.

Nonetheless, the definition of "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" is a meaningful definition that can help people understand evolution by natural selection.

Also you seem to be ignoring that fitness can be quantified and at least on of those methods of quantification involves probability distribution. Furthermore, you are ignoring that one of the efforts of studying evolution is to be able to predict whether an organism will survive or note. Since it next to impossible to predict all the interactions that an organism will have during its life, it is desirable to try to predict survival from a set of knowns, most often genes. Thus, if two organisms have the same set of known genes (keep in mind that not every gene in the genome effect the survival of the organism) and one survive and the other doesn't, there are two different outcomes for the same input, making the process inherently probabilistic.

 

[articulett]

articulett-

There is an agreed upon definition of "random", and it is "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution". The definition "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" is merely a special case, and nothing more. The reason it is such a common definition is that before probability theory was axiomatized through set theory in the 1940's and 1950's by Andrey Kolmogorov, the most common instances of its application were for gambling where it was essential that, for a game to be "fair", all outcomes had to be equally likely. This is the way probability is taught in precollege mathematics, and there is nothing wrong with that, but it simply isn't the whole story.

In axiomatized probability theory, there are object called probability space that consist of a set known as the sample space, a collection of subsets of that set called a sigma algebra the elements of which are called events, and a measure that maps each element of the sigma-algebra to a point on the closed interval [0,1] following the axioms of probability. Random variables are measurable functions that map events in the sample space to events in another set called the state space, which are elements in the sigma-algebra on the state space. A probability distribution is a measure on the state space that maps each event in the state space to a point on the real line or subset thereof.

In the case of discrete uniform probability, the measure on the sample space maps each event in the sample space to the same point on [0,1] such that the sum of all the probabilities sum to 1.

I realize that my explanation is a bit slapdash. For a fuller and more careful description, I would suggest that you read this site and the first chapter in Janos Galambos' book Introductory Probability Theory.

Nonetheless, the definition of "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" is a meaningful definition that can help people understand evolution by natural selection.

Really--when has it ever done so? Isn't the evolution of everything including this thread random by this definition? Aren't all processes? How is your definition of random different than the creationist claim about scientists thinking this all got here by chance? It seems to me that none of the definitions of evolution by everyone in the field seems to find it important to make a distinction and have done so in every link provided. Dawkins and Jones (the nozzle guy) have been proven successful in explaining evolution to people. To me, just like on talk origins--when you use ambiguous terminology like random to describe natural selection, it really sounds like you haven't got a clue as to what natural selection is or does. You don't seem to get why Berkeley, Dawkins, Talk origins, Steven Jones, or any of the top biologists in the field of genetics use the definitions they do nor define random as "anything that can be described or related to a probability distribution."

You say they are wrong and that natural selection is random--but you don't have a more definitive explanation or anything clearer to say about evolution...in fact, it sounds very much like you really don't "get it". Your definition of random did not even hold up as the first definition in a physics dictionary. Plus your reasoning is soooo faulty. You say that since mutations are random and they are random components in evolution, then evolution is random. That is as meaningful as saying if there since the variables can be any random number, and math problems have variables--math theorems are random. Truly, that is the logic you are using. Is selection random in the nozzle example? Why or why not? Can't it be described by a probability distribution? Aren't random variables involved? Is it descriptive to call math problems random because some of their components are random.

Has anyone ever conveyed to you that they think you understand natural selection or that you are communicating it effectively. Where is this place that tells us the "official" definition of random?

And Walter, I give up. I have no idea what you are even trying to say. My point is that most scientists do not think Dawkins et. al. are wrong in calling selection non-random and there is no single definition of random that is used across the sciences. Moreover, every scientists I've spoken to except for people on this forum say that they'd find it misleading if someone described evolution--particularly natural selection as random--unless by random they just meant...unplanned or unpredictable.

I've already cited multiple sources of high academic credibility to show why and how evolution is explained and what sort of answers give the clearest explanation in regards to the question asked. I have seen no person of any influence call evolution or natural selection "random"--I can't imagine what, if any information is conveyed and none of those calling natural selection random have given any definition of random that clarifies its importance. I think this is because they don't understand it. Moreover, they bitch about people who have been proven to explain the concept to many. Further, I know of no peer reviewed scientist in any field who has trouble with the definitions proffered by Dawkins, et. al. The only people I know who want to call natural selection "random" or to sum up evolution as random are a few people on this forum and creationists as multiply quoted. If your definition is indistinguishable in content and as misleading as Chopra or Behe, then I think it's a safe bet to say that no really cares that you want to stomp your feet and insist that evolution be described as a random or stochastic process. It turns out all you are saying is, "evolution can be described by a probability chart". Big deal. How informative. How useful. What can't be?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Have you ever heard of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, articulett?

I suggest that you check it out before you make the claim that no scientist says that evolution is "random" in the sense that I have told you repeatedly that I was using.

 

[articulett]

Have you ever heard of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, articulett?

I suggest that you check it out before you make the claim that no scientist says that evolution is "random" in the sense that I have told you repeatedly that I was using.

The neutral theory of molecular evolution (also, simply the neutral theory of evolution) is an influential theory that was introduced with provocative effect by Motoo Kimura in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although the theory was received by some as an argument against Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Kimura maintained, and most modern evolutionary biologists agree, that the two theories are compatible: "The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution" (Kimura, 1986). The theory attributes a large role to genetic drift.


Yes, I'm familiar with it because it has been used by creationists to obfuscate. What actual scientists use it for is to determine whether genes were selected because they conferred fitness or rather because they rode along in genomes that were over all "more fit" or sorted with an especially fit gene without causing deleterious effects in the process. Remember the mutated Vitamin C gene that doesn't work in Chimps, gorillas, and humans--but is active in all other mammals--that is a gene that was passed on similarly. It got "selected"--not because of fitness as you would describe it--but because it was in the genome of ancestors with especially fit genomes and didn't cause harm because the carriers of these genomes were primates who eat fruit and don't need to manufacture vitamin C.

This is not a model of evolution. This is a tool to see which mutations were essential to an evolving species and which got passed on because it was non-harmful junk in an otherwise fit genome.

Much of our DNA is of that variety. But evolution is driven by the information that does form organisms--that confers advantages to genomes--neutral mutations like junk DNA just get copied right along side the essential stuff. Mutations build up in them more rapidly because they are NOT important to reproductive success and are thus the most useful in determining paternity and doing forensic testing. The stuff that is most essential has been highly conserved in genomes through time--like the hox genes.

But this is not saying what you are saying and this theory, though used in attempts to undermine Darwinism, it does not say selection is random. Although that was possibly the intent when it was proffered over 30 years ago--now that we can actually decode genomes, we can use the theory to suggest whether key mutations were essential in creating a given species...or whether they were along for the ride like the DNA mutation gene. This has nothing to do with "equally fit organisms where one survives and one is wiped out by a meteor" and similar examples you use to call natural selection random.

If you are DNA that gets copied because the genomes you are in exist in organisms that produce lots of copies of themselves--then you get passed along with those copies so long as there is no overall detrimental effect. Fittest just has to do with what gets copied--not why or how--to be copied is to be "selected"--the more copies you make the more mutations you can gather--the more non essential the fidelity of the copying needs to be, the more it will accumulate mutations--the more essential a gene is to survival, the more slowly and perfectly it will be copied through the eons--why? Because mutations tend to be lethal in vital genes or at least make reproduction less likely.

But this is really basic. I know of no scientist in any field in practice that would agree with that the statement "natural selection is random"--or if they did, I don't think they'd find it informative. I have seen no peer reviewed recent papers provided by you or anyone that says Dawkins explanation is incorrect nor that natural selection is random. The ones who seem to say such things the most or at least imply it are the creationists per multiple quote I've cited. It just is not informative. Even you don't seem to understand the articles you are quoting. So where are all these scientists that say "evolution is random". You haven't cited one. Where are the ones criticizing Dawkins and Talk Origins and the Berekey sites that say natural selection is not random? Again, you've provided nothing. So your are basically saying that "evolution can be described by a probability chart" per your definition of random. But what can't be? Doesn't that apply to everything? How is that different than the creationist 747 analogy? I'm sure that could be described by a probability chart too, can't it?

Do you have anything recent to support your claim?--not old stuff from philosophers of science whom you think are describing evolution the way you are?

To me, you just keep saying over and over--"evolution is so random...Dawkins is wrong, wrong, wrong." Does any scientist anywhere support that view or find that statement useful?

 

[jimbob]

I say natural selection is probabilistic, because traits can increase or decrease the probability of an organism reproducing and them on. They do not guarantee this.

Saying this is not probabilistic, leds one down a sterile dead-end, where everything selection is determined entirely by the environment, which one can't define, as opposed to making statements which can in principle be quantified.

"There is an x% chance that this population of bacteria will develop resistance to this antibiotic within a certain number of generations, given these environmental conditions"

 

[jimbob]

Or a better example:

Sickle Cell anaemia.

In the malaria belt of West Africa, being a carrier of this disease was advantageous because it conferred increased resistance to malaria.

Not all people without this mutation would die from malaria in this region, but enough...

Not all the carriers children would also be carriers, on average it would be 50%, and depending on the partner, the other 50% could lack the mutation and be at increased risk form malaria (partner is not a carrier) or have the full sickle cell if the partner has the full sickle cell disease (unlikely) or 25% of each (if the partner is also a carrier).

The relative advantage of this depends on the probability of getting malaria, and dying from it before reproducing.

One could quantify these trade offs in terms of probabilities.

Indeed this has been done

ETA
For sickle cell anaemia
Accepting, understanding, and using probabilities allowes quantifiable analysis; saying, "evolution is non-random" doesn't".

Jim

 

[articulett]

Or a better example:

Sickle Cell anaemia.

In the malaria belt of West Africa, being a carrier of this disease was advantageous because it conferred increased resistance to malaria.

Not all people without this mutation would die from malaria in this region, but enough...

Not all the carriers children would also be carriers, on average it would be 50%, and depending on the partner, the other 50% could lack the mutation and be at increased risk form malaria (partner is not a carrier) or have the full sickle cell if the partner has the full sickle cell disease (unlikely) or 25% of each (if the partner is also a carrier).

The relative advantage of this depends on the probability of getting malaria, and dying from it before reproducing.

One could quantify these trade offs in terms of probabilities.

Indeed this has been done

ETA
For sickle cell anaemia
Accepting, understanding, and using probabilities allowes quantifiable analysis; saying, "evolution is non-random" doesn't".

Jim

Correct. And nobody is saying "evolution is non-random". They are saying that selection is non-random with respect to "random" matings and "random" mutations...as your article clearly shows. This is why fitness is only about what gets passed on and not what humans define as fit.

Sickle cell trait has evolved multiple times because those who were heterozygous for the mutation preferentially survived in malarial regions and suffered no ill effects. When two people carrying the trait mated, their offspring had a one in 4 chance of having sickle cell anemia making them less lless "fit" from a reproductive point of view.

In malarial regions, having sickle cell trait confers a survival advantage--having 2 copies of this gene most likely eliminates you from the gene pool...

We all carry recessive traits we don't know about until producing offspring with a recessive condition. This is why we don't mate with close relatives (because we are more likely to have recessive genes in common). Fundamentalist Mormons are inbred and have a high rate of a very rare recessive disease.

I have no problem using the word probabilistic in regards to natural selection.
I think preferential survival is better...some say "natural selection acts on the randomness"--or "natural selection drives evolution". But the model you show is not a model that says evolution is random nor does it say natural selection is random. In fact it clearly distinguishes "random matings" from that which is selected in the next generation. I think sickle cell anemia shows why biologists go out of their way to distinguish what is selected from the relatively random mutations and recombinations (matings). Clearly what survives and why is not random.

 

[articulett]

Here are the claims being made. Which ones do you find objectionable.

Passing one's bigotry onto children is abuse of power.

Having kids deem scientists deliverers of "false facts" is abuse of power.

Enforcing such beliefs with threats of hell and/or promises of salvation is abuse of power.

Having a kiddy museum and using science to give credence to lies is abuse of power.

Making kids feel like they know higher truths when in fact they've been made ignorant is abuse of power.

That is all anyone is saying. Which ones are you up in arms about? And would you be so strident in your defense if the religion in question was Muslim or Scientology? Would you be accusing people of painting with a broad brush if the subject was racist bigotry or homophobia? You are hearing accusations that aren't there because the subject is religion. You are defensive because the subject is god. You are demanding silly evidence because you've been raised to protect the emperor who is wearing no clothes.

 

[articulett]

the above was posted in the wrong forum and I noticed too late to delete it.

 

[jimbob]

I have no problem using the word probabilistic in regards to natural selection.
I think preferential survival is better...some say "natural selection acts on the randomness"--or "natural selection drives evolution". But the model you show is not a model that says evolution is random nor does it say natural selection is random. In fact it clearly distinguishes "random matings" from that which is selected in the next generation. I think sickle cell anemia shows why biologists go out of their way to distinguish what is selected from the relatively random mutations and recombinations (matings). Clearly what survives and why is not random.

Clearly what survives and why is not random.

That is where I differ from you, because of my understanding of the word "random". "Why" is not random, but who and what are proportions/percentages, and can be described by statistics. These are used to describe probabilities of events affecting populations, when certainties can not be used; that is all I mean by random.

I slightly prefer probabilistic to preferential survival, because I feel it is slightly more accurate.

And I don't really want to discuss the semantics of the word random. As I know how many people (whom you are likely to talk to) think they use it, even though they do actually accept the idea of odds for other than uniform distributions.

Hey, I might like: "Natural selection is statistical"....

"Preferential survival" can actually be fine, if one is carefult about how it is used.

The problem is in arguing aginst a clever, dishonest arguer (Behe, has to be clever, really, I suppose) who thinks that the goal of "saving people for Christ" is worthy of the means of lying and confusing less well-educated people.

That is why I would try to stear clear of automatically trying to refute everything they say.

Jim

 

[articulett]

That is where I differ from you, because of my understanding of the word "random". "Why" is not random, but who and what are proportions/percentages, and can be described by statistics. These are used to describe probabilities of events affecting populations, when certainties can not be used; that is all I mean by random.

I slightly prefer probabilistic to preferential survival, because I feel it is slightly more accurate.

And I don't really want to discuss the semantics of the word random. As I know how many people (whom you are likely to talk to) think they use it, even though they do actually accept the idea of odds for other than uniform distributions.

Hey, I might like: "Natural selection is statistical"....

"Preferential survival" can actually be fine, if one is carefult about how it is used.

The problem is in arguing aginst a clever, dishonest arguer (Behe, has to be clever, really, I suppose) who thinks that the goal of "saving people for Christ" is worthy of the means of lying and confusing less well-educated people.

That is why I would try to stear clear of automatically trying to refute everything they say.

Jim

Even the article didn't say natural selection can be described by a probability curve--why? Because such a statement is uninformative. They showed the actual probabilities. The same goes for genetic counseling. It's useless and uninformative to use the word random when all you are saying is "this could be described by a probability distribution". What can't be? Nozzle selection could be. And so could a tornado in a junkyard making a 747. Unless you can state the probabilities, it's just more informative to distinguish randomness that can affect natural selection from the randomness of mutation. Clearly they are not equally "random". The nozzles did not evolve randomly. The 747 in the example did assemble "randomly"...animals do not evolve randomly. Preferential survival and reproduction means that some genomes will be selected while most are eliminated. A random sperm from your dad may have fertilized the egg that made you--but it did not fertilize it randomly--it had to have a minimum fitness level AND be the first to penetrate the egg (requiring special enzymes) AND be capable of producing a viable fertile offspring --and to really be spread it should have DNA that encourages you to attract mates and spawn a lot...even if the trait isn't "fit"--traits like impulsivity, dislike of condoms, ruthlessness, desire to have a huge family. Of course, genes only build "tendencies" and what a gene encodes is not necessarily in the best interest of the humans carrying them.

Just because randomness is involved in the process, doesn't mean that it's informative to boil the whole thing down to "it's random" or "it can be described by a probability chart. If it can be described by a probability distribution--show that distribution--or use a tighter definition if you don't want someone to jump to the conclusion that "scientists think that all this stuff just came to together randomly".

The only instances of "non-random" being used to describe natural selection is directed at an audience who has been misinformed regarding the creationist canard. It is directed at the most common understanding of random. Clearly natural selection is much more than that.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett, what is so uninformative about describing something as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" other than that you think that it describes anything an is therefore meaningless?

 

[articulett]

articulett, what is so uninformative about describing something as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution" other than that you think that it describes anything an is therefore meaningless?

Um...I was a genetic counselor for several years, and we don't tell people that "your chances of having a kid with Down Syndrome is related to a probability distribution." We actually give the probabilities for obvious reasons--the statement is uninformative.

In the article about the nozzles, it would have been silly to sum up the article as, "as you can see, the nozzle evolved due to being related to a probability distribution...therefore, it evolved randomly".

It just doesn't convey any information. It doesn't distinguish the probability distribution in mutation from the very different probability distributions you see upon selection (elimination rounds). It is the same as saying "scientists are saying that all we see just came about by chance." It's uninformative, and leaves out the most important part of what we KNOW about evolution. No scientist thinks this all came about JUST by chance. Natural selection played a vital role and creationists go out of their way to garble understanding very similarly to the way you do.

How informative is the word or term if it applies equally to a junkyard 747 and the nozzle example?