What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[jimbob]

Articulett, the rules aren't random, the game is.

In a lottery the rules are simple " a certain number of balls are selected, and if your numbers match you win".

The lottery is random. The rules are still nonrandom.

Natural selection works on the simple principle of a mutation affecting an organism's chance of reproduction. Given the odds harmful mutations will be quickly culled (99% within x₁ generations) but so are many beneficial mutations, x% chance within x₂ generations.

 

[articulett]

Articulett, the rules aren't random, the game is.

In a lottery the rules are simple " a certain number of balls are selected, and if your numbers match you win".

The lottery is random. The rules are still nonrandom.

Natural selection works on the simple principle of a mutation affecting an organism's chance of reproduction. Given the odds harmful mutations will be quickly culled (99% within x₁ generations) but so are many beneficial mutations, x% chance within x₂ generations.

No game where strategy is involved is called a random game unless you want to confuse. As meadmaker pointed out...you are using the same definitions of random to describe different things--none of which are truly random in the strictest sense of the word.

Remember the two eggs in the nest scenario and a snake picks one. The snake is a part of the environment... something made him choose one egg over the other. Was it closest? A preference for things on the right (human preferentially choose things on the right when given a "random" choice)....Something made the bird lay the eggs in the order or direction they lay them in. All of these things are part of the environment...part of the game...part of the rules...to call this "random" means you may as well call the fact that an organism is born on earth random as opposed to some other planet. Some things survive and adapt better in very unpredictable environments...some things can eat most anything....some things have tons of offspring (bacteria) which increases the chance that the information they carry will be part of some useful mutation in the future. EVERYTHING in the world evolved to live in THIS world... every ancestor lived long enough to successfully pass on DNA. The rules are simple. Natural selection assures that all living things die--but a select few will get some or all of the information that made them copied into vectors that live and copy the information before they die. CALLING THIS RANDOM OR PROBABLE misses the point entirely. It's as misleading and vague as calling the forumula for a slope random or probable.

Maybe it's because you are a physics person... but you just don't seem to factor in or even "get" the notion that it's the INFORMATION that changes "randomly", but only successful replicators built via that information can be selected. They aren't selected "randomly"--they are selected by how successful they are at getting their info. copied into living vectors before they die. That isn't random. Calling it random or probable or confusing it with your personal definition of fitness or muddling understanding by calling stuff that would be expected on planet earth "random"-- just makes you sound like you don't understand natural selection at all. Truly, it's like saying the formula for a slope is random or probable. Sure...I guess you could say so...but why? It's meaningless and misleading in exactly the same way Behe is in regards to natural selection.

What is your goal? To understand the answer to the OP? Or to assure yourself that you already have the answer--and the answer is "there is no evidence". Saying that is on par with saying "there is no evidence that the formula for a slope isn't random". Really. You guys sound exactly like that analogy. I could give forumula after formula regarding slopes and probabilities and articles that say that something or other about a slope is stochastic... but in the end I'd be doing exactly what you are doing. I'd be playing a semantic game that obfuscated understanding and didn't clarify a damn thing and didn't illustrate my understanding of what a slope formula is at all while pretending that science and statistics supported my claims. And all of this would be in an effort to prove that there was no evidence (that would satisfy me) that the formula for a slope is not random. That is EXACTLY what the randomites are doing. And that is what Behe does. The question was bad, and the answer designed for semantic vagaries that let people conclude what they want without really saying anything at all. Imagine, if the question had been asked about a formula for a slope. Couldn't all the randomites make similar arguments to prove that slope formulas are random or contain probabilities...? Imagine that scenario and you will perhaps understand why creationists are fond of these weird questions...and why nobody wants to debate them.

What is your goal?
What is mijo's goal?
Is it to understand or presume you already do?
Is it to convince yourself you are right and Dawkins et. al. are wrong or misinforming?
Is it to sound like Behe?

If you want to know the best way to describe evolution...stick with those who actually have conveyed understanding to many.

 

[cyborg]

jimbob the way you choose to use the word random everything is random - or at least things are only as random as you are happy to think of them as (so you have a certain comfort level that QM isn't causing some 'random' event in one thing but not another).

As for probability distributions I've already adequately demonstrated why they don't adequately define randomness.

But whatever. It all falls on deaf ears as everyone here keeps on using vague notions of what it means for something to be random and continually ignoring my earlier point that I predicted this would in fact be the case and pointed out that it is unhelpful in communicating the nature of evolutionary processes since it makes Poker the same game as Roulette. I can only explain this so many times before I have to conclude that either you really can't see it or you don't want to.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

Our motives should be the least of your worries, because when you are right about something in science you are right about it regardless of what your motive are for being right. For instance, if the randomites are right and evolution is random as they define "random", evolution is random as they define "random" regardless of whether anyone wants to then say that evolution is there fore impossible. They would be wrong is saying that because evolution is random in the way they define "random", evolution is impossible, but it wouldn't be because they are wring about evolution being random. This is your problem your think that we are creationists because we say evolution is random regardless of how we choose to define "random" because creationists say that evolution can't happen if it is random or haphazard and ignore that our definition of of random is not the creationists' definition.

 

[articulett]

articulett-

Our motives should be the least of your worries, because when you are right about something in science you are right about it regardless of what your motive are for being right. For instance, if the randomites are right and evolution is random as they define "random", evolution is random as they define "random" regardless of whether anyone wants to then say that evolution is there fore impossible. They would be wrong is saying that because evolution is random in the way they define "random", evolution is impossible, but it wouldn't be because they are wring about evolution being random. This is your problem your think that we are creationists because we say evolution is random regardless of how we choose to define "random" because creationists say that evolution can't happen if it is random or haphazard and ignore that our definition of of random is not the creationists' definition.

No, I don't think everyone is a creationist. I am certain YOU are. You are most definitely a religious apologogist...you most definitely move your goal posts. What is your goal again? You most definitely have a "debate" method indistinguishable from Behe...even some of the arguments you use to claim, "evolution says all this complexity evolved from chance". You defintely avoid certain questions and answer others obliquely when attempts are made to get you to clarify. You most definitely cannot hear simple things that most people other than creationist understand easily. You most definitely have a backwards understanding of natural selection and "fitness" that is recalcitrant.

The way you define random fails utterly in distinguishing your claim from the 747 in a junkyard. It's as vague as calling the formula for a slope random. It's useless. You make several logical flaws that are common amongst creationists as well.

What was your goal in starting this thread Mijo? Just be honest and concise for once in your life. Did you get your question answered? How is your question different than the creationist canard that scientists think this all happened by chance? Why is Dawkins and Ayala and the Berkely site not an answer to your question? Why are you defining random in a way that no peer reviewed article is using? Why are you using "stochastic" as a synonym for random? Do you understand how order comes from natural selection?--Because your verbosity makes it sound like you don't have a clue.
Do you even understand the difference between genotype and phenotype and which articles you quote are talking aboout what?

I think you are the only one insisting that it makes some sort of sense to sum up evolution as random or that natural selection IS random. You and Behe. Jim just sounds muddled to me. And I have Schniebster on ignore, because I can't tell what his goal is.

I, like Talk Origins, and the majority of scientists quoted and the people on this thread think that if you think it makes sense to call evolution "random", you don't understand natural selection.

What is your goal? Why did you ask your question? Or, as usual, will you ignore all questions and attempts to get you to clarify? I maintain that no respectable scientists will answer your question by saying "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random". Because of the way you've defined random, however, there is no evidence that the formula for a slope is non-random!...Your definition means that it's "random" as to whether seat belts save lives (or with your semantic gymnastics you could call it a "stochastic process"--and you've told us again and again you consider stochastic a synonym for random). Is that meaningful? Clear? If you are fine with being that uninformative..so be it. Behe is fine with being exactly that unclear in regards to evolution. You are not even one iota more clear than he is.

Again, what was your goal in asking the question in the OP? Was it answered? Why is Ayala's peer reviewed paper unacceptable as an answer? Why is there no peer reviewed paper using language or defining random as you are? Who, other than you, thinks it's informative to call natural selection random (or with some synonym thereof)? What are their credentials? Who thinks your description is clearer than Ayala or Dawkins? Why don't you put your definition up for peer review?

And, once again, it's not a matter of wrong or right. Definitions are opinions. Facts are not. I understand evolution, and I understand ways in which other people come to understand it or become confused. You pretend to understand both, but do not convey an understanding of either. That goes for all those who think it's informative to sum up evolution as a "random process" or those who agree with the statement "evolution says this all came about by chance". Evolution is random per your definition and so is the tornado in the junkyard. Your semantic gymnastics does nothing to distinguish the difference and, in fact, encourages confusion between the two--exactly as the wedge strategy encourages.

I'm not worried about motives, as I'm sure the best explanation will evolve... and not randomly...but as a direct result at creationist attempts to obfuscate. Natural Selection is a very powerful "force" in "shaping" what evolves. Too bad, you can't understand that.

What was your goal in the OP?

 

[Schneibster]

Articulett is on the wrong forum. What she's talking about is not science; it might be politics, or it might be philosophy, but it's not science.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Articulett is on the wrong forum. What she's talking about is not science; it might be politics, or it might be philosophy, but it's not science.

I hear you there. The fact that articulett seemingly can't distinguish a well-reasoned scientific argument based in many years of published research across many disciplines from the emotional rhetoric of creationists should be an immediate tip-off to anyone who is not similarly intellectually dishonest.

 

[articulett]

The randomites are as right as anyone who says there is no evidence for the formula for a slope being non-random.

It's not really right or wrong...it's just vague and meaningless. If your goal is to confuse people about the slope formula so they just don't quite get it...it's a great semantic tactic. You can use all the same definitions and papers you use even. But if somebody wanted to understand how the slope formula was non-random (your OP question) it would be completely uninformative. This applies equally to your calling evolution "random". It's equally as useful and informative and "correct" and for the same reasons...using the same definitions. I can't imagine why anyone would want to be that uninformative unless they were ignorant ... and/or a creationist. I can only imagine that for the paltry randomites who aren't religious apologists, their confusion is due to a lack of understanding about replicating systems or how it is that it's physical forces in nature bringing the "order" that we observe.

But you are way lamer than that. You think that because identical twins can fail to reproduce similarly, this means natural selection is random. Slopes have random variables... it doesn't make them or the formula for them, random. Unless, of course, you're defining things as loosely as Mijo is. And how useful is it to describe things that vaguely. I think it's very useful if you are bent on someone not understanding natural selection and saying "scientists think all this complexity arose through chance." Jim Bob and Schneibster may think that. The majority would call that a gross over-simplification at best--uninformative and misleading or just plain "wrong" at worst.

 

[articulett]

I hear you there. The fact that articulett seemingly can't distinguish a well-reasoned scientific argument based in many years of published research across many disciplines from the emotional rhetoric of creationists should be an immediate tip-off to anyone who is not similarly intellectually dishonest.

Since I've provided peer review support of all that I've said and I actually have taught evolution to many...you are blathering just like Behe on his Amazon blog...

Wah, wah, wah... scientists don't consider my claims seriously. Claiming to be intellectually honest or rigorously scholarly (as Behe does, by the way) doesn't make it so. None of your science says "evolution is random"--none of it defines random like you.

I've been exposed to so much creationist blather that I'm immune to it. Do you notice that not a single credible source is using language as you do and that you call Dawkins and Ayala wrong despite them having credentials far more substantial than yours. Intellectual honesty? Ha. What was your goal again mijo... or are you still moving the goal posts?

Are Dawkins, Ayala, cyborg, and everyone else talking philosophy too? Weren't you the dolt saying philosophy of science IS science when you thought someone's words could be twisted into your vagaries. You are as transparent as Behe. Tee-hee.

And still no peer reviewed articles saying evolution or natural selection IS random, right? No peer-reviewed articles describing random like you do, eh? Well, when you don't have facts on your side, do what Behe does, fling ad homs and obfuscate... but of course.

Does any peer reviewed scientist anywhere say evolution IS random or "not non-random" or even that it's informative to describe evolution in it's entirety in terms of randomness?? Anyone? I thought not. It's just too vague to mean a damn thing. It's as uninformative as calling the formula for a slope "random". There's no such thing as a "non-randomite"...just people smart enough to know that it's not informative to sum up evolution as a random process because doing so is identical to the creationists claim that "scientist think this all came about by random chance.: Only the most ignorant scientists might. But clearly none publishing in peer reviewed articles.

Your goal...mijo. What was your goal in asking the OP?

 

[mijopaalmc]

My goal is irrelevant to whether or not I am right. Insisting it must be is an ad hominem.

 

[articulett]

And Mijo, why don't you tell me the difference between your claim and Behe's claim that "evolution states that the appearance of design is due to random chance."

No biologists would agree with that statement. What we observe is due to errors or changes or recombination of DNA replication coupled with natural selection--the ultimate de-randomizer and "order" builder of organisms built from DNA blueprints. If you don't get that or can't convey it on some level then you claims are indistinguishable from Behe's. Unless you can illustrate otherwise. No matter how much self congratulations and Behe-esque self righteousness you engage in.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The randomites are as right as anyone who says there is no evidence for the formula for a slope being non-random.

Wrong.

This comment just shows that you have failed to grasp the foundations of probability theory and are refusing to because such a refusal suits your preconceived notions of how things should be. You do not seem to understand that the functions and formulae of elementary (high school and college) algebra are simply not the same as the sigma-algebras and measures on them that define probability theory, which I have already tried to explain to you twice.

Basically, the functions of elementary algebra relate the elements in one set to the elements of another, most often the real numbers to the real numbers. Random variables, the bread-and-butter of probability theory and stochastic processes (i.e., that which is by definition "random") are only defined on sigma-algebras (i.e., collections of subsets of a given subset under examination) and not actually on the elements of the set themselves. The probabilities and the probability distributions themselves are defined by measures, functions on the sigma-algebra that map every set in the sigma-algebra to a point on the closed interval [0,1] or to a point real number line (or a subset thereof), respectively. Any system, such as algebra or calculus, that is not so defined is by definition "not random".

Please try to keep this this in mind before you yet again declare the randomites' definition of "random" to be "meaningless".

 

[articulett]

My goal is irrelevant to whether or not I am right. Insisting it must be is an ad hominem.

Right about what? It being useful to call evolution a random process? I would imagine that would require at least some evidence in support of such a statement. A peer reviewed source defining random like you. Or a peer reviewed source saying evolution IS random. Or "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random" or even, "it makes sense to describe natural selection in terms of randomness. Sure you're right. As right as anyone who says the formula for a slope is random or that it's random as to whether seat belts save lives. Or the winner of poker is chosen at random. And you are right for the exact same reasons.

An ad hominem is when you denigrate the argument by denigrating the person.

As far as I can tell, this is a semantic argument about whether anyone credible thinks it makes sense to call evolution and/or natural selection a random process. It therefore makes sense to point out that that is a semantic argument used by creationists. That is not an ad hom. That is actually irony. Your lack of clarity regarding evolution is the exact reasons some scientists go so far as to say that natural selection is the opposite of random. Your lack of clarity is the reason that random is defined differently than you define it in peer reviewed papers.

And isn't this thread about your goal? Your supposed to desire to understand what is non-random about evolution? Why Dawkins et. al. would call natural selection the opposite of random? Because, at one time, I believe you said that was your goal. I now take it that your goal is to convince people that you are "right" about something...right about saying that evolution is random, I imagine. That means that you agree with Behe and the creationist canard that "scientists think this all came about by random chance". That is not an ad hom...but you are very rusty on your logical fallacies as well as on your understanding of natural selection. And ad hom would be if I said, "you can't trust anything Mijo says because he's a creationist"--even creationists can be trustworthy and correct on some topics. But an ad hom would have to do with your actually making a claim. You haven't made one, really. I mean, as far as I can tell, you're saying that there is no evidence that evolution is random per your definition. I agree. I just don't think anyone intelligent uses your definition of random, nor do I think anyone who understands natural selection would think it was more informative to say "evolution is random" than it is to say "slopes are random". I think you are as informative as Behe who has not been successful at conveying evolution to anyone but has obfuscated it for many, and you denigrate those who have been far more successful than you or Behe. I think that's hilarious.

And why are you afraid to state your goal...isn't this your thread? Didn't you have some goal? Surely it wasn't just to play semantic games so that you could convince yourself that "science thinks this all came about by chance", was it?

 

[articulett]

Wrong.

This comment just shows that you have failed to grasp the foundations of probability theory and are refusing to because such a refusal suits your preconceived notions of how things should be. You do not seem to understand that the functions and formulae of elementary (high school and college) algebra are simply not the same as the sigma-algebras and measures on them that define probability theory, which I have already tried to explain to you twice.

Basically, the functions of elementary algebra relate the elements in one set to the elements of another, most often the real numbers to the real numbers. Random variables, the bread-and-butter of probability theory and stochastic processes (i.e., that which is by definition "random") are only defined on sigma-algebras (i.e., collections of subsets of a given subset under examination) and not actually on the elements of the set themselves. The probabilities and the probability distributions themselves are defined by measures, functions on the sigma-algebra that map every set in the sigma-algebra to a point on the closed interval [0,1] or to a point real number line (or a subset thereof), respectively. Any system, such as algebra or calculus, that is not so defined is by definition "not random".

Please try to keep this this in mind before you yet again declare the randomites' definition of "random" to be "meaningless".

Wrong, this just shows your unwillingness to understand just how vague you are being when you say evolution is random. This shows why no peer reviewed papers use language quite as vaguely as you.

Your goal? What was it? Other than being right about something or other?

 

[articulett]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711105750.htm

Here's a good article published that just gives a brief description of genes and the structures they give rise to (some randomites seem shakey between the two). Note how they are very careful to distinguish between changes on the DNA level (including random mutations) and the physical features which allow some to grow exponentially. There lots of ways to describe evolution. But nobody calls it random and everybody distinguishes that which culls the information from the information that is culled. Notice the emphasis on "exponential growth"--nothing in the randomites definition recognizes this...THIS is what makes what is selected via the environment, very different than galaxies, mountains, and buttons. If the organism is "selected" than the information inside it can be copied a multitude of times on into the future. Why anyone would be so vague as to leave this very important part of the equation out speaks of profound and possibly unfixable ignorance. Why anyone would go out of their way to sum this up as random is unfathomable...unless, of course, they are a creationist.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wrong, this just shows your unwillingness to understand just how vague you are being when you say evolution is random. This shows why no peer reviewed papers use language quite as vaguely as you.

Your goal? What was it? Other than being right about something or other?

Wrong again.

You are ignoring that the definition that I have provided is the definition used by mathematicians and scientists alike, none of whom would refer to elementary algebra and calculus as "random". The definition may be abstract, but it is certainly not vague or meaningless. Again, you think that my definition of "random" (which is the definition that the scientists who study the stochastic modeling of evolution use) is vague simply because it doesn't fit with you preconceived notions of the way things should be.

So it is up to you to present a source that says unequivocally that evolution is not random (meaning that it does not say elsewhere that "natural selection increases the probability of survival and reproduction") or admit that there are no such sources.

 

[articulett]

At yet another article saying not only is natural selection non-random (biased)...but mutations are also non-random (biased).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010313074117.htm

Damn, everybody seems to be making the same "philosophical" argument. Imagine that.

"Darwin proposed that evolution largely depends on an abundance of minute 'random' variants that arise with no particular direction. Natural selection, in his view, imposed non-randomness on this mass of 'random' variation," explains Stoltzfus, "and this influence of natural selection gives an external or environment-related direction to evolution by preserving or destroying forms according to their adaptedness."

Stoltzfus says that many of Darwin's 20th century followers adopted the view that all non-randomness in evolution comes from natural selection. "What is important, then, is to use population-genetic reasoning to demonstrate that both mutation biases and selection influence the outcome of evolution under simple conditions. Without disputing that natural selection is a prominent 'external' cause of non-randomness in evolution, we maintain that there is also an 'internal' cause arising from biases in variation. It is this kind of 'internal' directionality- disparaged by 20th century Darwinians as 'orthogenesis'- that is needed to fully appreciate modern research in molecular evolution and in evolutionary developmental biology."

Gee, anything that says evolution or natural selection IS random yet, Mijo? Or do you still have to play semantic games to pretend credible person is saying what you are saying?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Biased doesn't mean non-random!!!

 

[articulett]

Wrong again.

You are ignoring that the definition that I have provided is the definition used by mathematicians and scientists alike, none of whom would refer to elementary algebra and calculus as "random". The definition may be abstract, but it is certainly not vague or meaningless. Again, you think that my definition of "random" (which is the definition that the scientists who study the stochastic modeling of evolution use) is vague simply because it doesn't fit with you preconceived notions of the way things should be.

So it is up to you to present a source that says unequivocally that evolution is not random (meaning that it does not say elsewhere that "natural selection increases the probability of survival and reproduction") or admit that there are no such sources.

Oh, I just did. See, it's right up there. And Ayala--peer reviewed even. And Dawkins, and Talk Origins, and Berkeley. I also provided evidence of Behe saying just what you are saying. But I bet it would be hard for me to find evidence of scientists saying slopes are not random...therefore, they must be, right? Per your definition....which you claim everyone else is supposedly using, but providing no evidence whatsoever that anybody you is.

Where is the peer reviewed paper defining random as you are defining it again?

And what was your goal? Or are you avoiding attempts at clarifying again?

 

[articulett]

Biased doesn't mean non-random!!!

According to the article it does. And big font doesn't make it true. Nobody seems to be using words the way you are, Mijo. And multiple sources including yours have referred to "random" as having equal probabilities which makes biased the opposite of random. No scientific source uses random as you are. The way you are using random...means that everything could arguably be random.

What was your goal?

Are you trying to bludgeon scientists into using your useless definition of random that not a single peer reviewed paper is using? The very same definition that Behe seems to be using? Why, Mijo? Wasn't your goal to understand why these scientists were calling natural selection non-random? Or was it just to make up your own vague definition and assume that you are saying something when you say "evolution IS random"--although NOBODY of any credibility would ever be so uninformative and vague. It is as informative as calling a slope random...or gravity...or any other principle/theory/forumula/ concept.

There's lots of ways to describe evolution. And lots of ways to answer your question (loaded as it was). But there is no one with any credibility answering it quite as vaguely as you. And I love the red font--so Kleinman like. If your argument sucks, use font abuse.