What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

Oh, and looky here mijo...on the very same page where you pulled your definition of random from:

The term randomness is often used in statistics to signify well defined statistical properties, such as lack of bias

http://www.answers.com/topic/randomness?cat=health

So if randomness is lack of bias then bias is lack of randomness or NONRANDOM. I'll spare you the big font. Therefore, you are wrong yet again. Try to be consistent, won't you. So what was your goal, again?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Which of my sources described evolution as "non-random"?

Rouzine and his colleagues do consider selection to be non-random but that that does not stop them form referring to the whole process of evolution as "stochastic" and saying that the "deterministic" behavior at large effective population sizes is a result of the limit behavior of the stochastic process.

And, articulett, given the number of times that my OP has been cited it should be obvious what my "goal" was. I wanted people to present evidence beyond that which was presented in Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress and, so far, you have only managed to provide evidence that evolution is "non-random" by ignoring that I am using a totally different definition than you and declaring that my definition is vague and obfuscation. We can have a battle of definitions for the next century, but that doesn't change the fact that you are avoiding the question by applying a different definition, which is used just as often, if not more so, by scientists as yours is.

 

[articulett]

Which of my sources described evolution as "non-random"?

Rouzine and his colleagues do consider selection to be non-random but that that does not stop them form referring to the whole process of evolution as "stochastic" and saying that the "deterministic" behavior at large effective population sizes is a result of the limit behavior of the stochastic process.

And, articulett, given the number of times that my OP has been cited it should be obvious what my "goal" was. I wanted people to present evidence beyond that which was presented in Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress and, so far, you have only managed to provide evidence that evolution is "non-random" by ignoring that I am using a totally different definition than you and declaring that my definition is vague and obfuscation. We can have a battle of definitions for the next century, but that doesn't change the fact that you are avoiding the question by applying a different definition, which is used just as often, if not more so, by scientists as yours is.

No, Rouzine does not say "evolution is a stochastic process"...nor are they using stochastic as a synonym for random...nor are they nor any other source using your definition of random: "of or related to a probability distribution". Why, because it is vague. Moreover, your own sources tell you selection is not random--wasn't that the OP question? What is your goal? And which scientists are actually using your definition of random--that is, where is random defined as "of or relating to a probability distribution" in a peer reviewed paper? You know, the way random is defined in the Ayala, peer reviewed paper? The way it's defined on the Berekely site. I don't believe that anybody but you is using the term random to define anything and everything that can be related to a probability distribution. I think that is just nutso. NOBODY CREDIBLE IS CALLING EVOLUTION RANDOM. NOBODY CREDIBLE IS SAYING "there is no evidence for evolution being non random". Multiple credible sources are defining random differently than you are and multiple credible sources are saying that natural selection is NOT RANDOM. Nobody will ever use your definition and claim evolution is "not random", because by your silly definition it IS. But so is everything. So is the tornado in a junkyard! So are you. So is this thread. Why, I can find some randomness or some way of relating everything to a probability distribution. That's why no one who actually wants people to understand natural selection or who wants to convey the non random aspects of evolution (that which brings "order" or "direction" to the process) will ever ever be as vague as you are, and creationists always will be.

Claiming that people are saying what you are saying doesn't make it so. Where is the peer reviewed evidence on par with the evidence I provided saying natural selection is not random? Where's the peer reviewed paper defining random in the text the way you are defining it (random was defined in the Ayala paper). The only person I know who talks in semantic circles filled with logical fallacies trying to twist evolution into this notion that "science thinks this all happened by chance" is Behe. It's such irony--you bitch about scientists calling natural selection "determined", biased, "non-random", or even the "opposite of random"--but it's obfuscations like yours that make such language necessary.

1. Let's review--your definition can be boiled down to "science thinks the complexity on earth arose randomly."

2. This is identical to Behe's claim.

2. You claim to want to know why Dawkins et. al. say selection is not random.

3. You were provided with Dawkins explanation, multiple papers including a peer reviewed paper that says natural selection is not random. There isn't a single credible source saying "evolution is random" nor a single credible source defining random as "anything with probabilities involved."

4. Yet you still insist you are right about something and Dawkins is wrong or unclear. What exactly is it you are right about? And who thinks you are clearer than Dawkins or Ayala or Cyborg?

5. The randomites think that the answer to the OP is "there is no evidence" so long as you define "random" as "having to do with probabilities."

6. Everyone else agrees. But nobody credible defines random that way, nor does anyone credible say that "there is no evidence for evolution being non random."

7. As far as the basic principal--Cyborg said it best...nice and simple-- The changes to the genome are relatively random--but selection is determined entirely by the best replicators in whatever vector and environment the genome finds itself in. Quit confusing yourself with redundancy.

8. You are playing semantic games so you can claim #1...not so you could have your OP question answered. Q.E.D.

 

[articulett]

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.

Aack... nobody will say this because it's backwards... it's semantically incorrect. Being better adapted increases the probability of getting the info. that makes you copied... not the other way around. Natural selection just makes sure all living things die-- some of them will pass on their info. into living vectors beforehand. It's not a "probability increaser"-- And admit it, I presented exactly what you asked for in your OP--nothing will be enough... now you are asking for scientific papers that speak as vaguely and incorrectly as you do. As if. No evidence is enough to convince Mijo that scientists have a very good reason for saying natural selection is not random and the vaguest of semantic vagaries will lead mijo to conclude that all of science thinks that random means: "of or related to a probability distribution" and/or that "stochastic is a synonym for random" and/or "that there is no evidence that evolution is non-random".

Your semantic games are laughable.

 

[cyborg]

Which of my sources described evolution as "non-random"?

It's irrelevant. You've already made the distinction between random and non-random non-existent, so in mijo world it is just as accurate to say "evolution is random," as it is to say, "evolution is non-random," as it probably is to say, "evolution is pink and squidgy."

So like I said before: I'm really, rally happy for you if that conceptualization of the words works for you. Isn't it nice when you brain gives your an endorphin hit?

Now I like it when words actually categorize things into separate little realms of meaning and since I am learned enough to realise that human language is a messy knot of reciprocally defined meaning I don't get upset when I can see an opportunity to reassess the understanding of a word and the concepts I associate with it in order to increase its usefulness. I don't have an invested interest in saying, "evolution is random," or "evolution is non-random," because these are just labels and until meaning is applied they have no power.

So whilst the fact of the matter is that I have shown why your formal definition for random fails completely to be accurate and as such makes the term impotent either you don't understand the implications the definition you provided imply or you don't understand the nature of how humans construct language and associate concepts and how that is a movable feast.

So which is it mijo: stupid or stubborn?

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett and cyborg-

If you are so convinced that my definition of "random" is so broad as to be essentially meaningless and that your definition, "[o]f or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely; with out bias", is the better definition, could you explain to me how the vast majority of random variables can be random but have non-uniform probability distributions?

 

[articulett]

articulett and cyborg-

If you are so convinced that my definition of "random" is so broad as to be essentially meaningless and that your definition, "[o]f or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely; with out bias", is the better definition, could you explain to me how the vast majority of random variables can be random but have non-uniform probability distributions?

No.

Because:

1. You have shown an inability to comprehend any and all explanations regarding the vagueness of your definition despite a whole thread testifying to the fact.

and

2. I'm tired of slogging through your verbiage trying to understand what the hell you're actually trying to say. It all boils down to, "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random". Yes, Mijo. Per your definition, Evolution IS random.

I suppose that it's random (or maybe stochastic) as to whether this makes you happy or not. And it's completely random that your conclusion boils down to the creationist canard propogated by Michael Behe--"science thinks all this complexity arose from chance alone".

... Randomly, randomly, randomly, randomly, life is but a dream.

 

[articulett]

You want to call this random, mijo, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274.

Sad...so uninformative and sad. I just can't see anyone of any credibility summing up this sequence of events as "random". If you can't understand why that's uninformative, misleading, and obfuscating, then you never will be able to understand no matter how careful the explanation. My evidence? See Behe.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

You never answered my question as to how "random" is best defined as "equally likely" yet the vast majority of probability distributions are non-uniform, making event described by them not equally likely to occur. Instead, you have resoted to your old straw man that my definition is "uninformative and obfuscating" supposedly because "anything can be described that way" and blatantly ignored the fact that I have explained to you that not everything can be explained by probability, especially if the underlying mathematics used to describe the underlying system is not based on a probability measure or the "measure" itself is not based on a sigma-algebra.

 

[articulett]

articulett-

You never answered my question as to how "random" is best defined as "equally likely" yet the vast majority of probability distributions are non-uniform, making event described by them not equally likely to occur. Instead, you have resoted to your old straw man that my definition is "uninformative and obfuscating" supposedly because "anything can be described that way" and blatantly ignored the fact that I have explained to you that not everything can be explained by probability, especially if the underlying mathematics used to describe the underlying system is not based on a probability measure or the "measure" itself is not based on a sigma-algebra.

Okay... may not everything could be described that way--but this could: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274.

If you want to sum that up as random or in terms of randomness or call it a stochastic process you sure aren't going to be explaining it to anyone very well. It's not the random stuff that matters--it's how a select bit of the random stuff (changes in DNA) affects the replicators in the environment they are in. The supposed random events in the environment that you want to introduce to sum up evolution as random obfuscates the understanding of what evolved and why and how. Nobody, but a creationist or a scientific ignoramus would say--the butterflies evolved randomly...or "due to random chance". It's uninformative, incomplete, misleading, and vague-- even though it involves non uniform probabilities and whatever other pedantry and semantics you desire to confuse yourself with. Sure, it's random per your silly definition. But I notice that nobody of any credibility seems to be using random so bizarrely except Behe. I'm sure that you can get someone somewhere to say that this evolution is a "stochastic process"--and we all know that you consider stochastic a synonym for random. But I am also certain that anyone who describes the above article in such a manner will not have conveyed how the change in the butterflies came about... and it's doubtful he even understands the process.

Yet a brief news clip can do exactly that with normal, clear, language.

 

[articulett]

duplicate

 

[Schneibster]

Like I said, it's politics or philosophy, not science.

If it were science, she'd have an answer, not this BS of accusing people of things and lying.

 

[cyborg]

Er, weren't you the one complaining about semantic games?

No, terminology is not science; it's a way of facilitating shared understanding based on common reference points. Like I said all those eons ago either you're going to use a good definition of random or you are not.

Arguing that a term designed to capture acausal events is a good summation of a process based on causal events is clearly folly. Well it's clear to me at least.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

How is it uninformative and misleading to describe the evolution of resistance among the Samoan butterflies as "random", in so far as the mutation that conferred resistance on the males made it more likely for those males with the mutation to survive?

 

[cyborg]

Because randomness is acausal.

The advantage to the butterflies is causal.

It's really that simple and there's only so many ways of saying the same thing. You have already demonstrated you do not really understand the statistics of randomness via my earlier test. Whilst you insist on being back-to-front in your thinking you will continue to be wrong.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Er, weren't you the one complaining about semantic games?

No, terminology is not science; it's a way of facilitating shared understanding based on common reference points. Like I said all those eons ago either you're going to use a good definition of random or you are not.

Arguing that a term designed to capture acausal events is a good summation of a process based on causal events is clearly folly. Well it's clear to me at least.

Uh...no, articulett is the one that has consistently accused people of playing "semantic games" even when people have been very clear what definition of "random" they are using and how the definition does not encompass every physical system. In fact, you have insisted that "random" means "without purpose", "arbitrary" or "acausal" and that the definition referring to probability distributions is meaningless, much like articulett. I'd say that refusing a very well-explained definition (and yes, P(X)=1 is a valid probability, but it only allows singleton events to occur and precludes anything else from happening) in favor of hand waving is playing semantic games.

Can you explain how coin tosses and die rolls are acausal?

 

[articulett]

articulett-

How is it uninformative and misleading to describe the evolution of resistance among the Samoan butterflies as "random", in so far as the mutation that conferred resistance on the males made it more likely for those males with the mutation to survive?

Actually it made them less vulnerable to a parasite that feasted on male embryos. And that parasite evolved a preference for killing male embryoswhich made them "more likely" to survive and get copied. And the males that lived due this resistance were "more likely" to sire offspring--and the offspring males were all likely to carry the same beneficial mutation and so it increased exponentially and quickly in the population. I'm sure the parasite will evolve new tricks too--now the parasite seems more of a symbiote--getting passed on without harming it's host. But more and less likely doesn't mean "random" to most people and it's not the part of the equation that allows people to understand how the environment selected for that which we observe. Nobody would say that the selective process is random...even if they did the backwards thing you are doing when you say those with the mutation are "more likely" to survive. Yes, some poker hands are better than others. But we don't call playing the game a random process. Nobody with any credibility who wanted to explain this process would call this a random, stochastic, or probability-based process, because it confuses more then it informs. They might use the term "preferential survival". There's lots of way to discuss what happened. But if your desire is to be clear use the words of people actually conveying understanding and not your own vaguely defined terms and odd semantic games that highlight the least important part of understanding the main story.

Yes, if random only means "related to probabilities" or whatever other vague definition you are using...then the article describes a "random process". But that is exactly the reason scientists tend to be much more clear when using the word random if they use it at all. They tend to define it in their papers, and none seem to be defining it as vaguely as you. The facts are the same--the language you choose to communicate those facts leads to confusion that is identical to Behe's confusion. You know this. And yet you still insist on pretending it's meaningful to sum up evolution as random and to leave out the most important information of all--what brings the order? What makes the growth exponential? I contend that you are doing this because you either, don't understand natural selection, or you don't want others to. I've seen not one peer reviewed source defining random like you or using language in the same semantically twisted way that you do. Multiple papers have shown stated that "biased" is, in fact, the opposite of random despite your big red lettering declaring it's not. Because of this, natural selection can be called non-random and would be the answer to your OP. The rest of the credible world seems to be using a stricter definition of random than you are. And I haven't seen anyone say that random is synonymous with stochastic. Stochastic models contain random variables...they are not "random" in themselves.

But I know that no evidence will ever be enough to convince you that you are unclear and proffering useless information that obfuscates more than it clarifies. I imagine this is true for anyone and everyone who would still sum up evolution as random. If you sum up evolution as random, you just don't get natural selection and you sure as hell can't convey such understanding to another. Step into the 21st century where we've tweaked the language a bit for the sake of clarity and as a direct response to creationist obfuscation. By your definition this process happened "randomly". For the rest of the world this would be misleading in the same way you are. For me, it's because the best explanation will evolve just as languages do. For creationists, their creationist arguments evolve...and this "random brouhaha" seems to work, so they tweak it and shore it up with semantic games. In response, more clarity into how evolution is not random...how the order comes about...has evolved. That is reflected in the science writing of this time.

 

[articulett]

Can you explain how coin tosses and die rolls are acausal?

Sure, as soon as you explain how loaded dice are random...and get a judge or scientist to agree.

The sequences are not acausal.

Take this coin toss sequence:

HHHTTTHTHH

...each time you toss the coin, you either remove yourself from getting the sequence or you increase your odds of getting all numbers of the sequence. That's not random. Removal is determined by a single wrong coin toss. The chance that you will get everything right in this sequence depends on how many you have gotten right so far...the more you get right, the better your odds are at getting them all right. Each toss is still "random" or 50/50-- but the final series of ten coin tosses is altered with each throw. Each throw narrows the final outcome.

The same with DNA--except there is something bigger at play--the "winners" get to make lots of copies of themselves...making more vectors (and thus chances at winning) in the next round of genetic "coin tosses".

Your definition means you can call the outcome random at any point in the throw. That's misleading...because you can tell which coin tossers are removed from the pool upon a single wrong throw...and as time passes, those left in the game have better and better odds of being a winner. So there are lots of ways to call such a coin toss random or acausal...but if you wanted to know the "non-random" aspects--it's the stuff that is changing with each successive throw... it's the stuff that results in an eventual "winner". And suppose the winner gets 10,000 more coin-tossers that will toss coins for him and give him half their winnings--that mimics the exponential growth of and compounding of evolution. Your vague definition is on par with calling his winnings "random". Not particularly informative. The outcome is determined by what came just prior--what has evolved up to this point... that's causal.
And that's why no credible scientist refers to natural selection as random.

 

[articulett]

Yes, I'm the one complaining about semantic games, but I believe Shneibsters and your contention is that evolution really is random and we don't admit it due to political reasons or something.

We don't use the word random the way you do, because it confuses more than it clarifies and it's the exact confusion used by creationists. Moreover, it's a backwards way of thinking that is very difficult to eradicate. It's like you are bending over backwards to find randomness in evolution while wearing blinders as to any and all things that might be better described as "non-random"...or without reference to the term at all. You literally cannot see that which is causal or describe how the order comes about. And I say it's because you have an ego need to claim you are right and Dawkins is wrong--that your definition is the "true" one and everyone else is wrong.

 

[articulett]

Creationists have forced us to be clearer for the sake of those who want to understand HOW order comes from randomness in life. The facts are the same, the best way to explain it evolves, and things aren't headed in your direction for obvious reasons.