• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

I apologize to the other posters here for assisting in the derailment. To get back to the OP, I will admit I haven't read this entire thread, but generally when talking about natural selection with people who do not have a background in biology, I prefer to use the terminology from chaos modeling such as "multi-variable" and "non-linear". I will admit, I am not a biologist in any sense other than having a college evolutionary biology class many years ago and having read on the subject. The problem I find when talking with other people, particularly those with a science background, is that they often have very specialized definitions of "random" and "non-random". Some of these definitions do apply to natural selection, some do not. For example, computer programmers have a very narrow definition of "random". Rather than risk misunderstanding, it is easier to use terms that they are either unfamiliar with, so a workable definition can be agreed upon, or use words that do not have several meanings.

In other words, to be completely wishy-washy here, natural selection can be seen as "random" or "non-random" for different values of "random". :)

BTW, has anyone tossed sexual selection into the mix yet?
 
Thanks for dragging us back from the brink, MM.

Hokulele, in my considered opinion, this thread has mostly been about politics. The OP objected to the line taken about evolution being not random based on a statistical definition of random; IMO, using that definition, the OP is correct. Certain individuals have decided that it is appropriate to accuse this individual of being a creationist. I have tested this claim and found it to be false. When this was pointed out, these individuals engaged in dishonesty, and when challenged by their own prior statements, and statements in the sources they provided, refused to respond honorably.

So much for the politics.

I agree that random might not be the best word to use to explain evolution to someone who knows little of biology. I have said so several times on this thread. On the other hand, I have also stated that the quite restricted use of the word random in the context of mathematics, specifically statistics, and in physics, might well, IMHO, be the best way to approach the subject with someone who has training in these disciplines, but not much in biology. Do you have an opinion on that statement?
 
Schneibster said:
Thanks for dragging us back from the brink, MM.

Hokulele, in my considered opinion, this thread has mostly been about politics. The OP objected to the line taken about evolution being not random based on a statistical definition of random; IMO, using that definition, the OP is correct. Certain individuals have decided that it is appropriate to accuse this individual of being a creationist. I have tested this claim and found it to be false. When this was pointed out, these individuals engaged in dishonesty, and when challenged by their own prior statements, and statements in the sources they provided, refused to respond honorably.

So much for the politics.

I agree that random might not be the best word to use to explain evolution to someone who knows little of biology. I have said so several times on this thread. On the other hand, I have also stated that the quite restricted use of the word random in the context of mathematics, specifically statistics, and in physics, might well, IMHO, be the best way to approach the subject with someone who has training in these disciplines, but not much in biology. Do you have an opinion on that statement?
Click to expand...


I would agree that if you are talking with someone who has a background in certain fields of mathematics, as well as a field such as particle physics, random would be fine. Unfortunately, most people I talk with do not have a background in either of those fields, but rather have experience in computer programming and computer modeling, where random is completely the wrong word to use. It is to avoid this confusion that I try to avoid the word altogether.

This is kind of like when people ask me if I am a liberal or conservative. Those two words can be land mines of catastrophic proportions when trying to discuss science or philosophy with someone who is interpreting them politcally. Ai ya!
 
Anyway, back to the "all mutations are deleterious" canard.

In a stable environment, an organism's parents will have been fairly well optimised for that particular environment.
It is therefore quite likely that in such a stable environment, a mutation that affects the chances of reproduction is more likely to move away from "the optimum" than towards "the optimum". Thus most mutations that have an effect will be deleterious.

However, if the environment changes (e.g. the arrival of a new potential food supply like nylon) then the parent organisms are further from the "new optimum", and mutations are more likely to be beneficial.

New species are more likely to emerge to emerge when the ecosystem changes, and the old isn't so well adapted.

What is nonrandom about natural selection, it that over the generations there will be optimisation to the environment.

Natural selection means that it doesn't matter whether mutations are "random" or not, though it is probably slightly better if they are.
 
Gettin' pretty close to punk eek there, jimbob. Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with punk eek. :D
 
After googling Punk eek and realising that it is "punctured equilibrium", I can't see what the problem is, although I do vaguely recall that this is contentious.

I am only saying that the if the selection "criteria" change drastically, then a new set(s) of optima will be selected for. The mutation rate can stay the same.

ETA.

But then this is not surprising for someone who thinks that a probabilistic treatment of natural selection is appropriate. ;-)
 
Last edited:
It is, specifically, a point of contention (though hardly as rancorous as this conversation about random has gotten) between Dawkins and Gould; they are, nevertheless, reputed to be friendly, if not actually friends. I'd hardly call Dawkins a gradualist, however. I think he has a wider view that includes both gradualism and punk eek.
 
You are right, it is interesting...

This is one case where the nozzle analogy would work.

If one was optimizing for wheat grains for 2000 generations, then there would probably be little difference between the 150th generation and the 2000th generation. If one suddenly tried to optimise for gravel, from generation #2001 onwards, there would be a large difference between generation 2001 and generation #2050...

The history of the designs would look like a punctured equilibrium (because it was).

To me, it is almost tautological in its simplicity. And can work on the level of the organism/gene.


I suspect it is more obvious and attractive to those who are more numerate...
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
You started your question by saying that randomness isn't well defined. However, it is well defined. Of course, in common usage it has several definitions, but it is easy enough to specify exactly which one is in use, and that has been done here.

The paper by Chaitin looks interesting at a glance, but I don't see the relevance to evolution. I didn't read the whole thing, though. I just skimmed the abstract and a few paragraphs. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think his perspective is relevant to the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

So what is this well defined definition of random you are using, and can you quote a paper where the term is clearly defined. And when speaking of real world processes, we would be talking about degrees of randomness, correct.

Do you agree with this definition of random as defined in the peer reviewed Ayala paper I linked. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/suppl_1/8567

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.

How do you distinguish your assessment of evolution as a "random process" from the tornado in a junkyard strawman?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Take a look at this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82089

I'm pretty sure, though, that you've been given this information already.


As to this more specific concern, you can look at it this way: every organism that survives to reproduce is fit (at least enough to survive and reproduce in its current environment). That other equally "fit" individuals don't survive doesn't affect the statement I just made.

Also, since the measure of fitness is how well they survive to reproduce, how do you know these other individuals are equally as fit?

It could be that they are very closely related, and thus share many of the same genes. This is more or less the argument for the evolution of altruism. An individual might risk his own survival for the good of others, and it makes sense from a genetic standpoint (the altruistic trait is probably more frequent among those his sacrifice saved, so he has helped to pass that trait along, albeit indirectly).
Click to expand...

I can never find out why you evolutionist send us to creation bashing sites as your "evidence". Your "I am right and creationists are idiots" references are a conspicuous effort the fact that you can't even enter rational ideas for debate. Just say you have no clue if evolution has ever been seen and leave it at that. Don't send us to "www.ihatecreationists.com" and expect us to find evidence rather than just contempt for the opposition rather than ideas to support one's claim of a mythical evidence or agreeably logical method for such evolution.
 
jimbob said:
Anyway, back to the "all mutations are deleterious" canard.

In a stable environment, an organism's parents will have been fairly well optimised for that particular environment.
It is therefore quite likely that in such a stable environment, a mutation that affects the chances of reproduction is more likely to move away from "the optimum" than towards "the optimum". Thus most mutations that have an effect will be deleterious.

However, if the environment changes (e.g. the arrival of a new potential food supply like nylon) then the parent organisms are further from the "new optimum", and mutations are more likely to be beneficial.

New species are more likely to emerge to emerge when the ecosystem changes, and the old isn't so well adapted.

What is nonrandom about natural selection, it that over the generations there will be optimisation to the environment.

Natural selection means that it doesn't matter whether mutations are "random" or not, though it is probably slightly better if they are.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous post. You Nylonase freaks have never explained to me how you know Nylonase (which is your artificial name) doesn't consume other materials. Then you haven't proven that the Nylonase information was not in the parent as it is in every other case of genetic transfer of new features.

What a ridiculous claim, Nylonase came in the need to consume Nylon. How can you make such a baseless claim and still look people straight in the eye?
 
Hokulele said:
I apologize to the other posters here for assisting in the derailment. To get back to the OP, I will admit I haven't read this entire thread, but generally when talking about natural selection with people who do not have a background in biology, I prefer to use the terminology from chaos modeling such as "multi-variable" and "non-linear". I will admit, I am not a biologist in any sense other than having a college evolutionary biology class many years ago and having read on the subject. The problem I find when talking with other people, particularly those with a science background, is that they often have very specialized definitions of "random" and "non-random". Some of these definitions do apply to natural selection, some do not. For example, computer programmers have a very narrow definition of "random". Rather than risk misunderstanding, it is easier to use terms that they are either unfamiliar with, so a workable definition can be agreed upon, or use words that do not have several meanings.

In other words, to be completely wishy-washy here, natural selection can be seen as "random" or "non-random" for different values of "random". :)

BTW, has anyone tossed sexual selection into the mix yet?
Click to expand...


Yes, that has been the general consensus of this thread... random is an ambiguous term...and yes we discussed sex selection... here's a couple links. My point was simply to show that saying such things happened randomly is misleading at best. Once you understand how natural selection brings increasing order to a system (genome) then it's clear that no designer is needed...which is why creationist obfuscate understanding by summing up evolution as random.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/s...=8a3af3b12c59780dei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

For the record, how are you most likely to define random?
 
Hokulele said:
Since you do not seem to trust ichthyologists, try trout-fishing some time on hand tied lures. If you do not get the colors just so, you are not catching fish.
Click to expand...

I have trout fished with fly rods. I live in East Tennessee. We have trout streams out the wazoo.

"Match the hatch" is the most critical factor. More important that color is the tie itself. It has to be what the trout are expecting. Color has virtually nothing to do with it. Of course there is a factor of shades which do affect the visibility of the fly on the surface but hue has nothing to do with it. A blue fly with the right shading would be just a productive as a gray fly with the same shading. Fish have a tendency to hit what the see the most. This is why the current hatch has more to do with shapes than shades. But never hue.
 
rittjc said:
I have trout fished with fly rods. I live in East Tennessee. We have trout streams out the wazoo.

"Match the hatch" is the most critical factor. More important that color is the tie itself. It has to be what the trout are expecting. Color has virtually nothing to do with it. Of course there is a factor of shades which do affect the visibility of the fly on the surface but hue has nothing to do with it. A blue fly with the right shading would be just a productive as a gray fly with the same shading. Fish have a tendency to hit what the see the most. This is why the current hatch has more to do with shapes than shades. But never hue.
Click to expand...


Then why aren't all fishing lures shades of gray? It would seem to be cheaper to not have to dye buck tails and rooster feathers all the time.
 
rittjc said:
What a ridiculous post. You Nylonase freaks have never explained to me how you know Nylonase (which is your artificial name) doesn't consume other materials. Then you haven't proven that the Nylonase information was not in the parent as it is in every other case of genetic transfer of new features.

What a ridiculous claim, Nylonase came in the need to consume Nylon. How can you make such a baseless claim and still look people straight in the eye?
Click to expand...

Wow, are you a poor advertisement for faith. It seems to have made you both stupid, and angry.

So...back to nylonase...did god poof it into existence like everything else so that it could eat nylon?--Is that your hypothesis? The invisible man said to himself, "my beloved creations on this speck of earth finally created nylon...let me dip my finger into some bacteria and mutate it so I can make a life form that eats nylon?

And this designer knows how it's all going to turn out anyhow, right? He knows who is going where and all that...correct?--so why do you think you make a difference? Why does someone all powerful need you to speak for him ? I mean, your are not the best representative for anybody "all-loving", you know...

Is it true that you think scientists believe that life evolved randomly?

Is there any amount of evidence that would convince you that evolution is correct?

Do you know that Behe concedes that humans share an ancestor with apes?
Of course it's hard to deny when you see the facts.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739#post2199739

You seem to believe that science is about to "overturn" evolution any day now and find the truth that everything was designed from on high with a purpose in mind... so when is evidence of this miracle going to come to light? Weather gods and volcano demons disappear and gods role gets smaller as science explains more. So when will we get evidence of this "intelligent" (but wasteful and cruel) designer?

And how do you define random?
 
articulett said:
Yes, that has been the general consensus of this thread... random is an ambiguous term...and yes we discussed sex selection... here's a couple links. My point was simply to show that saying such things happened randomly is misleading at best. Once you understand how natural selection brings increasing order to a system (genome) then it's clear that no designer is needed...which is why creationist obfuscate understanding by summing up evolution as random.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/s...=8a3af3b12c59780dei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

For the record, how are you most likely to define random?
Click to expand...


Personally, I don't use the term random when discussing evolution mainly due the ambiguity you mention. Many of the people I work with are computer programmers or computer modelers, and tend to use random in the sense of random number generators, which may work when discussing particular mutations, but is highly inappropriate for discussing natural selection. If someone else raises the term, I generally ask how they define it, and go from there. Most often, I will discuss evolution in terms of the complexity of multi-variable systems and how these can be appropriately modeled (again, the whole computer background thing). This tends to get the point across much better with the people I mostly encounter.
 
Hokulele said:
Then why aren't all fishing lures shades of gray? It would seem to be cheaper to not have to dye buck tails and rooster feathers all the time.
Click to expand...

Can't believe you asked this question in a capitalist society when they would pay tons of cash to fill their tackle box with every possible combination for sale.

There is how ever a superiority or feature in certain types of material. Some work better if used in dry flies, some better in wet so it is not all marketing.

Hobby manufacturers are not interested in what is most economical for you.

But also keep in mind that tying flies is also an art form. It is more an art form than it is a creator of strike drawing secrets. Why does one paint a picture? It is cathartic.
 
rittjc said:
Can't believe you asked this question in a capitalist society when they would pay tons of cash to fill their tackle box with every possible combination for sale.

There is how ever a superiority or feature in certain types of material. Some work better if used in dry flies, some better in wet so it is not all marketing.

Hobby manufacturers are not interested in what is most economical for you.

But also keep in mind that tying flies is also an art form. It is more an art form than it is a creator of strike drawing secrets. Why does one paint a picture? It is cathartic.
Click to expand...


Since part of a capitalist society is competition, most people shop for the best product at the lowest price (hence the success of Walmart). If two lures are equally effective, and one costs 1/3 the price, don't you think it will be successful on the open market?

And regarding fly-tying in general, my husband and I are avid fishers and tie a wide variety of lures for dry, wet, nymph, and salt conditions. So yes, I do understand the subject quite well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom