What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[mijopaalmc]

But it's so much easier to move the goalposts when you're playing a hypothetical game.

How have I moved the goal posts, oh, Great Skeptic?

 

[cyborg]

Cyborg communicates the basic principle so much clearer...and uses so few words.

It helps to choose the correct model.

To expand.

jimbob seems to be viewing natural selection thusly. Grab a genetic pool. Select the winners based on the genetics.

This is wrong. The old phrase, "to be dealt a hand in life," more correctly assesses what is going on. You are given a card hand. Now whilst the cards you get can affect your chances of winning who actually wins a game depends not just on what your hand is; it depends on the rules, the other players and what cards they have. Sometime other players can prevent you from using your hand effectively. Sometimes you can change the rules to make your hand better. Either way you have to play the game to determine the strength of your hand. That's deterministic.

By concentrating on the statistics of Poker rather than how an actual game is played one misses the point.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It helps to choose the correct model.

To expand.

jimbob seems to be viewing natural selection thusly. Grab a genetic pool. Select the winners based on the genetics.

This is wrong. The old phrase, "to be dealt a hand in life," more correctly assesses what is going on. You are given a card hand. Now whilst the cards you get can affect your chances of winning who actually wins a game depends not just on what your hand is; it depends on the rules, the other players and what cards they have. Sometime other players can prevent you from using your hand effectively. Sometimes you can change the rules to make your hand better. Either way you have to play the game to determine the strength of your hand. That's deterministic.

By concentrating on the statistics of Poker rather than how an actual game is played one misses the point.

So, why are casino games called "games of chance" if the skill of the player is so important and, in fact, seems to determine who wins?

 

[cyborg]

So, why are casino games called "games of chance" if the skill of the player is so important and, in fact, seems to determine who wins?

Misses the point so badly - makes so many wrong conflations. Would there be a point in explaining just how wrong you are being here?

 

[articulett]

So, why are casino games called "games of chance" if the skill of the player is so important and, in fact, seems to determine who wins?

I don't think Poker IS called a game of chance, goalpost mover.

What was your goal for starting this thread again? Was it about why scientists call natural selection non-random, or about semantics over the word random or the word fitness or the word chance.

Goalpost moving. Q.E.D.

If you want to understand evolution; stick with Cyborgs definition. Or show some evidence that some qualified peer reviewed scientist somewhere actually used the words "evolution is random" or "natural selection is random". Just because it shows probability distributions...doesn't mean they are saying what you claim they are saying.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I don't think Poker IS called a game of chance, goalpost mover.

What was your goal for starting this thread again? Was it about why scientists call natural selection non-random, or about semantics over the word random or the word fitness or the word chance.

Goalpost moving. Q.E.D.

If you want to understand evolution; stick with Cyborgs definition. Or show some evidence that some qualified peer reviewed scientist somewhere actually used the words "evolution is random" or "natural selection is random". Just because it shows probability distributions...doesn't mean they are saying what you claim they are saying.

What state do you live in again?

A game of chance is a game whose outcome is strongly influenced by some randomizing device, and upon which contestants frequently wager money. Common devices used include dice, spinning tops, playing cards, roulette wheels or numbered balls drawn from a container.

Gambling is known in nearly all human societies, even though many have passed laws restricting it. Early people used the knucklebones of sheep as dice. Some people develop a psychological addiction to gambling, and will risk even food and shelter to continue.

Some games of chance may also involve a certain degree of skill. This is especially true where the player or players have decisions to make based upon previous or incomplete knowledge, such as poker and blackjack. The distinction between 'chance' and 'skill' is relevant as in some countries chance games are illegal or at least regulated, where skill games are not.

(emphases mine)

And you accuse me of not understanding the analogy and moving the goal posts? Seriously, lady (oh wait, ladies never lie), where do you get off?

 

[qayak]

Misses the point so badly - makes so many wrong conflations. Would there be a point in explaining just how wrong you are being here?

Only if your head isn't sore enough yet from beating it against the brick wall that is mijopaalmc!

 

[cyborg]

Argument from legal defintion.

Cute.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Argument from legal defintion.

Cute.

Actually, it's also the colloquial definition.

If you play the optimum strategy based on what you are dealt (which will rarely be a high ranking hand) there is still a chance that you will lose.

 

[cyborg]

It is unfortunate that you will not grasp the relevance of that last sentence.

 

[Schneibster]

Schneibester Please could you confirm or refute my assertion that my definition of random is essentially the same as yours.

From what I've seen, yes, it is. I haven't reviewed your posts categorically, but I have seen them, and read most of them, and that is "what I've seen."

I will agree that evolution is not haphazard, that evolution is not disorderly, that evolution is not disorganized. But I will not agree that it is not random; it clearly is.

 

[cyborg]

I will agree that evolution is not haphazard, that evolution is not disorderly, that evolution is not disorganized. But I will not agree that it is not random; it clearly is.

Um, how exactly do you resolve calling something both not disordered or haphazard with a word that describes the opposite situation?

 

[jimbob]

One more time:

Your value systems for fitness are IRRELEVANT.

Survival is determined. Genetic change is not.

Your quote was of my devil's advocate it isn't my viewpoint.

But As far as I follow, articulett, and you can't descrinbe any traits as making an organism "fitter", because only the fitter organisms reproduce and the definiton of "fit" means that an organismer reproduces.

As I see it, Cyborg's POV boils down to 'the environment is incredibly complex, but selection is deterministic, and the "the fit" are selected, so where an egg is laid in a nest relative to its siblings can also determine its "fitness".'

From my POV, one can talk about fitnes, and indeed have a rigerous mathematical definiton of it. A trait makes an organism fitter if it increases the probability of that organism reproducing.

One can then perform statistical tests on populations to see if this is actually the case for any individual trait.

Jim Bob--
I don't completely disagree, you just sound hopelessly vague to me. The randomness is not what drives evolution--it's a necessary component--but it's selection that drives the changes we see...it's this algorithm: "which chain of info. produces an organism that copies the info. into the most successful replicators?". I just think you keep getting lost in the randomness in the environment that affects selection and then calling selection random.

But we all trust that the best explanation will evolve based on whatever conveys the information the best in whatever environment it finds itself in.

But I can in principle use my definiton to perform statistical tests on observations of populations to test particular hypotheses about how particular traits (and thus mutations) affect fitness in different populations.

That is not vague, but precise.

And, as for the evolution of this thread...yes there is "selection"--all the words that appear are "selected"--they are responses to what came before. It is irrelevant that people could have responded better but never read this post or were struck by lightening or had a computer virus...only what IS selected matters in evolution... in the evolution of this thread and in the evolution of life and in artificial selection and the evolution of the nozzle. What could have been cannot drive the changes in phenotype. Selection is entirely determined by what survives successive elimination rounds in the pool of ever present and ever changing randomness.

I disagree, the words were chosen, but there was no culling of unsuccessfull ones after posting (save in a minor way by editing).

In any case, I think we can all agree--that compared to the relative randomness of mutation, selection is far less random and it is determined by what has come about so far. Do you agree with that?

If one is talking about a stable environment, maybe.

The environment hasn't been stable, it has been affected by random events, altering it randomly.

For the purpose of an y observing ecologist, dsecribing an ecological niche, an asteroid strike causes a very significant change to the environment and is random.

Any definition of evolution that doesn't convey that is just going to fritter about in creationist circles and not be useful in science. It is the second part that biologists refer to as "not random" and it is a method that evolved from creationist obfuscation. Biologists can and do use different words to convey the same ideas--but when they use that term (not random) they are talking about (and reacting to) "random" as creationists use it in the many articles I've clipped from.

Until you have played the game biologists have had to play with these people, you haven't the slightest clue about the problem nor is your opinion on the subject likely to matter to anyone but you.

I am prefering not to use the word "random" for that reason, but probabilistic.

Which it is.

Um, how exactly do you resolve calling something both not disordered or haphazard with a word that describes the opposite situation?

Because probabilistic is a good description.

It helps to choose the correct model.

To expand.

jimbob seems to be viewing natural selection thusly. Grab a genetic pool. Select the winners based on the genetics.

This is wrong. The old phrase, "to be dealt a hand in life," more correctly assesses what is going on. You are given a card hand. Now whilst the cards you get can affect your chances of winning who actually wins a game depends not just on what your hand is; it depends on the rules, the other players and what cards they have. Sometime other players can prevent you from using your hand effectively. Sometimes you can change the rules to make your hand better. Either way you have to play the game to determine the strength of your hand. That's deterministic.

By concentrating on the statistics of Poker rather than how an actual game is played one misses the point.

No I am saying that traits improve or reduce the chance of an organism reproducing.

Of the 4-million cod from a single spawning, the vast majority will not reproduce, those which do will be down to essentially random events. Traits that alter the probability of survival are still selected for, but I would argue that there is precious little difference between the fitness of most os the spawn, some of which reproduce and some of which don't. In this case the winning strategy is to try dealing 4-million packs of cards, and hope two win.

 

[articulett]

What state do you live in again?

(emphases mine)

And you accuse me of not understanding the analogy and moving the goal posts? Seriously, lady (oh wait, ladies never lie), where do you get off?

Read your definition again...is some places games of skill are distinguished from games of chance. Our gaming control board makes that distinction. But, you digress (as always). What was the goalpost again?

The best definition for evolution? Understanding why scientists say natural selection is non-random? Or assuring yourself that according to your definition evolution is random?

I believe I provided a peer reviewed paper that not only defined random differently than you seem to be doing--but it concluded that natural selection was not random per that definition. Should you or anyone show me there is a singular definition of random that you and all scientists are using...or that any credible scientist says "evolution is random" or "natural selection is random" in a recent peer reviewed document (of the kind you asked for in the OP)-- or any scientist uses a peer reviewed source to say that Dawkins, Ayala (the PNAS paper), the Berkeley Site, or Talk Origins is being unclear or incorrect in their definitions of random or in calling natural selection non-random, then I may change my mind.

Until that time, I will continue to repeat my assertion that your definition is vague, you move the goalposts, and you sound very similar to Behe. You have a need to sum up evolution as random per some vague definition, and there is no amount of evidence in the world that will lead you to hear that such a definition is vague and misleading. Moreover, I don't think you understand the papers you cite. None are saying what you are saying despite your assertions that they are. None are saying anything that doesn't match what Dawkins and Ayala are saying. How the blueprint evolves is different than how the replicators that carry them evolve--the former changes "randomly", the latter can only be selected if it replicates.

Sure evolution is random per your definition--but so is everything that has any randomness anywhere in it or anything that can even be related to a probability distribution. Therefore, your argument is random (it certainly is all over the place and unpredictable)-- so why don't you refresh us all and tell us what your goal for this thread was again?

 

[steenkh]

Could it be that the differences we see here are a result of different perspectives? Meadmaker suggested back in post 1418 that I viewed evolution as non-random because I look at the 'unfit' genes, and I readily conceded that the selection of 'fit' genes are completely random.

I do not have the intellect to follow the mathematical explanations like the landscape presented earlier, but am I right that they describe the selection of 'fit' genes?

Do the parties here agree that the unselection of 'unfit' genes is non-random?

 

[cyborg]

But As far as I follow, articulett, and you can't descrinbe any traits as making an organism "fitter", because only the fitter organisms reproduce and the definiton of "fit" means that an organismer reproduces.

If you were dumped in an ocean you might get that point when you start to realise that your particular genetics don't help you too much there.

As I see it, Cyborg's POV boils down to 'the environment is incredibly complex, but selection is deterministic, and the "the fit" are selected, so where an egg is laid in a nest relative to its siblings can also determine its "fitness".'

Uh no.

From my POV, one can talk about fitnes, and indeed have a rigerous mathematical definiton of it. A trait makes an organism fitter if it increases the probability of that organism reproducing.

Real rigorous there homeboy.

So tell me - how useful are your lungs for your reproductive success if I drop you in the ocean again? Do you have a variable for the probability of you being drowned by madmen?

One can then perform statistical tests on populations to see if this is actually the case for any individual trait.

Um no. One cannot perform statistical tests. One can perform statistical analysis. You really have got this all back-to-front.

But I can in principle use my definiton to perform statistical tests on observations of populations to test particular hypotheses about how particular traits (and thus mutations) affect fitness in different populations.

Yeah, and I can analyse the likelihood of winning a Poker hand but I still have to play the damn hand before I know if I won or not.

Do you not get that a statistical model does not make the actual playing of the game statistical?

Because probabilistic is a good description.

No it ****ing isn't.

Dice are probabilistic.

Lotto is probabilistic.

Coin flips are probabilistic.

Does a single one of these things even come close to being comparable to evolutionary processes?

It's incredibly piss-poor as a descriptor.

No I am saying that traits improve or reduce the chance of an organism reproducing.

**** - and having a better Poker hand doesn't increase my chances of winning?

Of the 4-million cod from a single spawning, the vast majority will not reproduce, those which do will be down to essentially random events. Traits that alter the probability of survival are still selected for, but I would argue that there is precious little difference between the fitness of most os the spawn, some of which reproduce and some of which don't. In this case the winning strategy is to try dealing 4-million packs of cards, and hope two win.

And it ****ing works.

So what's your point again? You don't like the fact that the game has a lot of inequity built in?

 

[articulett]

Could it be that the differences we see here are a result of different perspectives? Meadmaker suggested back in post 1418 that I viewed evolution as non-random because I look at the 'unfit' genes, and I readily conceded that the selection of 'fit' genes are completely random.

I do not have the intellect to follow the mathematical explanations like the landscape presented earlier, but am I right that they describe the selection of 'fit' genes?

Do the parties here agree that the unselection of 'unfit' genes is non-random?

I think you're saying that if a gene can't get into a replicator or can't form a replicator it is automatically "unselected" and unfit. I think everyone agrees on that.

But if DNA gets into a replicator (organism) that copies it, it still might not get selected due to "random events". Modeling fitness landscapes is about removing some of the replicators at random...without letting them compete or drive evolution...it's an attempt to simulate things like floods and meteors and random events. We know that the physical environment has these events in them...and that everything in a physical environment plays a role in what is selected (mostly the physical environment is a replicator elimination machine)--but so long as something survives--anything in that something's genome that gave it an edge in survival is also selected--as are all the neutral genes and the junk DNA. When we see physical changes in species over time we understand that there must have been some selective pressure which gave the traits that differentiate a species an advantage over those that didn't. When we look at the DNA, we can see what DNA was crucial (lead to the things we can observe) and what DNA just went along for the ride in a particularly strong (or lucky genome). And this is compounded through the eons.

So random events can eliminate genes that would otherwise be fit--but such randomness is expected in natural selection. We live on a planet that has certain properties...including lightening, occasional meteors, floods, thorns, etc. It's all just noise--part of the environment that we know will do the selecting. We already know that only one sperm will get to the egg, and we can only know that it's not among the least fit so long as it makes a replicator--but we can't know that there wasn't a better replicator amongst the other sperm--something that would confer an advantage to whatever organism would be created. We know that it takes this kind of abundance and waste to ensure the survival we observe or it wouldn't exist.

We cannot know what mutations will come about--only that there will be some...and we cannot know how or if they will change organisms...so that is also unpredictable (random)--But we CAN know that most will be eliminated (selected against)--and that what isn't eliminated will have some feature that allowed it to survive while others perished--even if it was the luck of having someone slower than you in your pack that became a meal instead-- in so much that such an asset was shaped by something in the DNA, it is passed on to be honed in future generations should it give even the slightest edge to carriers of such DNA in the future. The Dawkins tape was pretty good at explaining this.

And this isn't random. Or at least you can see why it would be confusing or misleading to call it that. We expect to see the genes of the most successful replicators and the features they create in future generations. Not because it's random--but because it's guided by what worked before--what comes next is determined by what came before...we expect to see incremental changes and refinement so long as the species evolves...just as we expect to see things added to this thread so long as it is viable. We can't predict what comes next in this thread...but we can say what comes next will be a lot less random that what the next thread posted on this forum will be about.

Boring topics or topics no one sees will die without ever having their "fitness" evaluated. What they could have been is irrelevant to what threads do evolve. The randomness of a post never being seen for some random reason doesn't make the evolution of this forum random just as all the people who could have added to this thread but don't, don't make this thread "random"--it just isn't informative to call it that...and yet it's that kind of randomness that mijo is using to sum up evolution as random.

The randomites seem hung up on random factors that occur in selection so much so that they miss the general principle or model of evolution so that they can lump the randomness of evolution in with random events that affect selection and then call the whole thing random. Even if someone could make a convincing case for this being technically correct, it's just too close to the creationist strawman, that I doubt any scientist will find it useful to call evolution random or natural selection random. Most stick with "random mutation coupled with natural selection--the latter the process that brings order to the randomness.

 

[articulett]

Oh-- Let me second what cyborg said.

Jim-Bob--all natural phenomena...including thorns and meteors are "expected" to be honing the pool of potential replicators. They are an expected part of the selection process--that is why it's called Natural Selection. If DNA can't get into a successful vector in a successful environment,--it just can't make it to the next level. If the DNA is "lucky" there's lots and lots of it copied into lots of vectors in lots of environments...and maybe one of them WILL get replicated.

Organisms that have the most spawn tend to have the most grandspawn-- With or without meteors, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc. If it's part of nature it's part of NATURAL selection. Do you know, some living things survived meteors...some might have even been in meteors...and we've recently discovered stuff way, way underground and in ice and living in the bottom of the ocean feeding off the radiation from earth's core--and things living in boiling lava. These things evolved because they had what it took to get their info. copied in the environment they happened to find themselves in. Extremophiles. Look it up. Evolved via natural selection--not at all randomly. They may not be fit by your standards, but you sure as hell ain't fit by theirs. This is what we mean by saying the "randomness" you speak of is just noise...fuzzing up your model and understanding of a simple concept. It's PART of "natural selection" It's redundant to count it in your definition of natural selection. And it misses the more important part of the equation. Why you insist on this obfuscation is beyond me.

 

[articulett]

Only if your head isn't sore enough yet from beating it against the brick wall that is mijopaalmc!

Indeed.

(But doesn't it make you feel good that you aren't him and he doesn't inhabit your personal reality?)

 

[articulett]

It is unfortunate that you will not grasp the relevance of that last sentence.

But I do.

And irony always puts a little spring in my step. I'm also fond of the whooshing sound I imagine as I see it flying over his head.