What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[cyborg]

There also seems to be a refusal to acknowledge the difference between using a probabilistic model to model something truly random and using such a model to model something with a great deal of uncertainty arising from a lack of information.

 

[articulett]

Nope. Aircraft do not evolve. They sit around or they get flown around.

Aircraft designs are a different matter.

This is so...simple. Why can't he hear it? I thought it was me. But you are so clear, and still...

Aircraft don't evolve anymore than a single organism evolves in it's life time. They stay what they are. But the information evolves (based on what works) creating species that evolve; --in the same way "aircraft making info." (the blueprint for making airplanes) evolves (based on what works) and aircraft technology evolves as a "species".

Species evolve to fit the environment they are in... even when that environment contains "randomness" (say terrorist hijackers)-- now cockpit doors are reinforced. This didn't evolve randomly...

 

[articulett]

The long and short of articulett's posts on Ayala:

"Until you accept my definition or "random", which scientists use only in non-technical, narrative writing in peer-reviewed journals and sound very confused doing so as they cannot avoid discussing the probability and chance of natural selection in the same piece, I'm going to impugn against your intelligence and character. I am also going to ignore that you provided a rigorous mathematical definition of probability so I can continue to call algebra, your argument, or anything that I so choose "random" so that I can declare the definition your are useless and use the definition I deem appropriate because it fits my preconceived notion of what should be."

I don't have a definition of random, you ass. I have, however provided several--one in a peer reviewed journal. I see no evidence that there is a singular scientifically correct definition despite claims to the contrary. I hear you assert that every other scientist is wrong in their definition, but I haven't seen anyone provide a scientific definition from a professional source that leads me to think anyone is using your vague definition. The word is ambiguous until proven otherwise. You have failed to do so.

And I want you to know that I'm impugning your intelligence and character because I truly think you are stupid and dishonest...not for the vomit of supposed reasons you spewed. Plus, I think I've made a pretty good case for both assertions. And I'm saying your definition is useless because there are no scientists as far as I can tell calling natural selection a random process and there ARE recent peer reviewed scientists saying that natural selection is not random. These aren't "my definitions". These are, however, examples that highlight the ambiguity of using words like you do. Moreover, the articles you pretend are saying what you are saying, are simply not doing so. You sound like you don't understand or can't understand or won't understand natural selection unless you can sum it up as random. I care about conveying the concept...not the semantic games of word usage.

Your arguments style is identical to Behe's. You seem to have one goal, but it was a lie (the OP) and then you change goals and definitions midstream, fling ad homs, non sequitars, poor reasoning, and malapropisms around in a buffoonish fashion while ignoring all answers to the OP question that you were supposedly so curious about and then pretending that it's me who has a special definition for random or me insisting on saying natural selection is not random. And you pretend that you have a chorus of rigorous scholarship in your corner-- as if!

You're like Behe...you use a lot of words to say nothing at all and imply that you are making a point...and then change the subject when anyone tries to nail you down.

What's your goal again?

Basically despite using the rich language of probability to describe evolution and natural selection, Ayala declares natural selection "not random".

And doesn't this clue you in to the notion that having random components or probabilities doesn't really the whole process random? How much more evidence do you need?? Oh that's right, there is no evidence in the world that will allow you to conclude that it's misleading, ambiguous, and/or uninformative to call natural selection "random", right? All I need is a recent peer reviewed paper that says "natural selection is random" or one that defines random in the way you are using it to conclude that maybe you aren't trying to obfuscate.

I don't have a vested interest in the words used, silly. I know the definition will evolve via natural selection (not randomly) for what works best for the most people and avoids creationist obfuscations in the process. It looks like "natural selection is not random" trumps "natural selection is random" by a long shot. And it tickles me that it pisses you off so much. I bet Behe is pissed too.

And I understand why.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

Where exactly does Ayala define "random"?

 

[articulett]

articulett-

Where exactly does Ayala define "random"?

Mutations are random or chance events because (i) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication and because (ii) there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual. However, the meaning of "random" that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is (iii) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms. Some are beneficial, most are not, and only the beneficial ones become incorporated in the organisms through natural selection.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/suppl_1/8567

Your welcome.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mutations are random or chance events because (i) they are rare exceptions to the fidelity of the process of DNA replication and because (ii) there is no way of knowing which gene will mutate in a particular cell or in a particular individual. However, the meaning of "random" that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is (iii) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms. Some are beneficial, most are not, and only the beneficial ones become incorporated in the organisms through natural selection.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/suppl_1/8567

Your welcome.

And that is yet another non-technical definition of "random".

As I have said before, I favor the description of evolution as a "stochastic process" rather than "random", because "stochastic process" has a rigorous mathematical definition (which does do not include the elementary algebra taught in high school and college), making it extremely hard to obfuscate when talking about evolution.

 

[articulett]

And that is yet another non-technical definition of "random".

As I have said before, I favor the description of evolution as a "stochastic process" rather than "random", because "stochastic process" has a rigorous mathematical definition (which does do not include the elementary algebra taught in high school and college), making it extremely hard to obfuscate when talking about evolution.

So where are these recent peer reviewed papers calling natual selection as a stochastic process and where is the paper with the rigid technical definition that includes events determined my immediate preceding events. Yes, gene assortment can be described as stochastic and random matings--but how what rigorous technical definition applies to calling something stochastic just because it has random components. That sort of definition means the evolution of everything is a "stochastic process"...death is a stochastic process...birth is a stochastic process...doing double blind studies is a stochastic process. The bottom line is you are vague.

And Jim Bob, so are you when you use probabilistic.

So admit it--no amount of evidence will get you to admit that it's misleading or clear to describe evolution as you are doing and much more clear to describe natural selection as not random, probabilistic or stochastic.

I reject all faiths. Do you have any evidence anywhere that someone in a peer reviewed journal of recent note is call natural selction by your terminology--any proof that you have the "real true" (but vague) definition of random? No? So you have a faith based claim, and can't provide any evidence which gives anybody of intelligence any reason to thing that it's meaningful to describe natural selection the way you are. If you are correct, I'm sure PNAS etc. will find out and make the appropriate corrections. Science has a way of fixing it's errors and clarifying understanding. Faith just obfuscates. If no amount of evidence can get you to change your mind, you are indistinguishable from Behe. Congratulations.

Despite your masturbatory self congratulations on your scientific rigor and clarity, everyone who matters finds you obfuscating. Instead of insulting those who might clue you in, you should be writing up your stunning treatise for PNAS or the periodical mentioned in Dawkins' review of Behe's book.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's simply not misleading to call evolution a stochastic process if you thoroughly discuss what a stochastic process is.

You simply cannot say that natural selection increases the probability of survival and reproduction, as Ayala did, and then turn around and say that evolution is non-random.

By the way, I have cited many articles where the authors have no problem think of evolution as a stochastic process. You might Want to start with the ones by Rouzine and his colleagues (Rouzine and Coffin 1999, Rouzine et al 2001, Rouzine et al 2002, Rouzine and Coffin 2005).

 

[cyborg]

It's simply not misleading to call evolution a stochastic process if you thoroughly discuss what a stochastic process is.

In other words it IS misleading if you don't; vis-a-vis calling evolution a random process is misleading.

Game. Set. Match.

BTW you might like to think about what difference it would make to your argument if mutation were determined.

 

[articulett]

It's simply not misleading to call evolution a stochastic process if you thoroughly discuss what a stochastic process is.

Mijo simply cannot say that natural selection increases the probability of survival and reproduction, as Ayala did, and then turn around and say that evolution is non-random.

By the way, I have cited many articles where the authors have no problem think of evolution as a stochastic process. You might Want to start with the ones by Rouzine and his colleagues (Rouzine and Coffin 1999, Rouzine et al 2001, Rouzine et al 2002, Rouzine and Coffin 2005).

Can you just give me the quotes that call evolution a stochastic process as well as the part that separates the randomness of mutation from the random components that effect selection? You know, like I did. Because I waded through your other crap and they just weren't saying what you were...and a definition of stochastic and/or random as you are using it (since you told us you are using one as a synonym for the other) would be helpful.

Oh, and I fixed it for you. Ayala did say it. He is a very respected Scientists who has published before...And Dawkins said it too--another peer reviewed scientists at the top in his field...so did the Berkeley site and Talk Origins... so telling me that they can't say what they clearly said just makes you look insane, delusional, and on par with Behe. What are your credentials again? And who thinks you are an expert in communication anything about evolution to anybody?

Nobody else thinks that "increasing or decreasing probabilities" means something is a random or stochastic process except you, nitwit, and you've done an amazing acrobatics with semantics and definitions in order to do so.
But don't take my word for it, do as Dawkins suggests for Behe, and submit your opinion to peer review. My opinion is nothing more than that which Ayala and Dawkins are saying. And Ayala has been submitted and accepted per peer review...multiple times. As has Dawkins. You have much bigger battles ahead than me if you insist on this semantic ambiguity just so you can say "evolution is random".

Why do you persist? What did you think of Dawkins review? Is he wrong too? And Behe is right to you, isn't he? What's your goal again? (You are so damn transparent.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

In other words it IS misleading if you don't; vis-a-vis calling evolution a random process is misleading.

Game. Set. Match.

BTW you might like to think about what difference it would make to your argument if mutation were determined.

So you are assuming that I am trying to mislead when I refer to evolution as a stochastic process, because I have not provided what you would consider a thorough description of what a stochastic process is?

I suggest you find a good introduction to stochastic processes and read it before you make that accusation.

 

[articulett]

So you are assuming that I am trying to mislead when I refer to evolution as a stochastic process, because I have not provided what you would consider a thorough description of what a stochastic process is?

I suggest you find a good introduction to stochastic processes and read it before you make that accusation.

He didn't make that accusation, asshat.

He just reiterated that calling evolution random is ambiguous. Your terms are ambiguous and misleading. Spewing your roundabout special mijo definitions doesn't have anything to do with it. Your terminology is useless to anyone but those trying to obfuscate...which is why they are the terms used by creationists! YOU are the reason scientists have taken to clarifying natural selection as being non-random. You and all those like you.

 

[cyborg]

So you are assuming that I am trying to mislead when I refer to evolution as a stochastic process, because I have not provided what you would consider a thorough description of what a stochastic process is?

Don't complain that I've hung you after you gave me the rope to do so.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Don't complain that I've hung you after you gave me the rope to do so.

Actually, you just made a supposedly clever turn of phrase that displayed your ignorance of the situation.

You still have not provided evidence that I am obfuscating when I call evolution a "stochastic process".

 

[cyborg]

Actually, you just made a supposedly clever turn of phrase that displayed your ignorance of the situation.

Supposedly? I resemble that remark!

You still have not provided evidence that I am obfuscating when I call evolution a "stochastic process".

I cite your recent posts M'Lord.

Calling evolution a "stochastic process" misses the point by galaxies.

 

[articulett]

It's a good thing you are too stupid to be embarrassed mijo...let's see, I clicked on one of your links and this just popped out at me:

For given levels of systematic pressure, evolution will be mostly deterministic if the population size is large enough but will be mostly neutral and dominated by drift (2) when the population size is small. Between these two limits there exists a large intermediate region, in which both selection and stochastic effects are critically important (3).

THAT IS FROM YOUR LINK! Do you read the stuff you cite, because you sure don't seem to understand it. The stochastic effects are in addition to the selection effects--he's just saying that mutations and recombinations are stochastic...not selection. He's referring to the random part of the evolution equation. In regards to the environment he just refers to "pressure"--more pressure for high volume elimination rounds like meteors
and less for lower pressure environments like your average rain forest. Natural Selection already has the "randomness" as part of the selection process!!

When your own sources belie your claims, don't you think it's time to do an assessment of your motives and your honesty? I will eagerly await the dodge and weave and blathering obfuscation.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Having read the pnas article, it is quite good but fails when it comes to talking about randomness. For instance,'However, the meaning of "random" that is most significant for understanding the evolutionary process is (iii) that mutations are unoriented with respect to adaptation; they occur independently of whether or not they are beneficial or harmful to the organisms.'

Lay people have no problem understanding dependence/correlation in random systems. I have discussed the topic with no technical people and they can grasp the meaning with a few minutes of explaination. So why back away here, and just cop-out by saying non-random? At times the article shies away from determistic language.

Natural selection accounts for the "design" of organisms because adaptive variations tend to increase the probability of survival and reproduction of their carriers at the expense of maladaptive, or less adaptive, variations.

But then later the articles goes for unqualified statements.

The adaptive randomness of the mutation process (as well as the vagaries of other processes that come to play in the great theater of life) is counteracted by natural selection, which preserves what is useful and eliminates what is harmful.

Are though no "false starts" in this process? Of course there are. A useful trait is never some panacea which guarantees survival to the reproductive stage. Once a trait gets a foothold in a population with numbers it will flourish, but there is no guarantee of it getting a foothold. A peacock which has a mutated sexiness gene is no more guaranteed to reach sexual maturity than its plain brother. But if it reaches maturity it has the reproductive advantage. It may seem like a nitpick, but the lack of qualification by Ayala when he states that it "preserves what is useful" is critical to understanding natural selection, in particular whether it is random or not.

If you either don't have the ability to explain biased random systems, or believe layman so stupid that they cannot grasp the concept then shy away from teaching as random. However, in my experience they are capable of understanding it. To say mijo calling evolution a stochastic process is misleading is myopic, when your own explainations are incorrect and will lead to students who either do not understand evolution, or do not understand random (even within the context they already use it).

Walt

 

[steenkh]

So highly probable as to be almost inevitible. So yes.

Is this discussion not a similar to deciding if a glass is half-full, or half-empty?

There are clearly random elements in evolution, and there are also non-random elements (in the sense that they are almost inevitable). Is evolution as such random or non-random?

When I look at evolution I see the 'drive' as being non-random, but the result as being random. The drive is the most important to me, and that is why I have no hesitation regarding evolution as being non-random.

Creationists on the other hand are only interested in the result (humans) and that is why they can only see the random part. It is our job to show them the non-random part.

 

[cyborg]

Once a trait gets a foothold in a population with numbers it will flourish, but there is no guarantee of it getting a foothold.

Gotta play to win.

It's so simple really - what exactly is the problem everyone here has with this?

 

[Walter Wayne]

Gotta play to win.

It's so simple really - what exactly is the problem everyone here has with this?

I should expand on that. When I am saying "get a foothold" I am not talking about the random event of the mutation, but of the randomness that mutation will be successful in the first few generations so that it has a base in the population.

If you understand that, then you what is your problem with this. A beneficial mutation occurs, it may or may not fix in the population by chance. That is randomness.