What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Meadmaker]

That still may seem unsatisfactory for an answer to your question.

No, that works.

One of the subthreads here is whether the apparently random events are "truly" random. i.e.ultimately caused by quantum mechanical fluctuation that is truly random.

To me, it isn't a relevant question when discussing evolution, because any predictions made by the theory don't depend on the answer. It really doesn't matter, when the snake eats the egg, if that decision was based on something truly random, or just inaccessible due to inability to measure. Either way, evolution predicts the same thing.

A related question is why any sort of discussion of random sequences is relevant to the theory of evolution.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you think it was very lucky for this bacteria that the same code can specify two very useful but different things?

I do.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've taken a look back at your original post, mijopaalmc. Now, I've noticed you used random in the sense of probability, therefore I'm assuming that you are using random to reference a probability distribution.

Now, using random or non-random in your original question was very ambigious. So I'm going to try and address the ambiguity before we can continue.

Taking a look back at your first post, your original question was.
"What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?"

Because random is an ambigious term, non-random is just as ambigious. What is meant by non-random?

Do you mean:
1. Predictable?
2. Ordered?
3. Without a probability distribution?
4. Determined?
5. Another word that better describes what is meant?

These questions may have already been addressed earlier, and if so, I apologize for bringing them up again. At least for me, I need clearer terms to understand what is being asked in the original question.

You also need to keep in mind that the "original post" wasn't really the original post. You may notice that the context refers to a link in a previous thread.

Mijo may object, but I will rephrase the OP thusly:

"If someone says that evolution is random, can one assume that he is either

1. uneducated
2. stupid
3. a creationist or
4. one or more of the above."


My answer is that of course none of those inferences are appropriate.

 

[cyborg]

So how is natural selection non-random?

Jesus **** - are you serious?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Jesus **** - are you serious?

Yes, the bias in natural selection does not make it by definition non-random.

 

[cyborg]

Has nothing about the mathematics of randomness I have presented here gotten through to you at all?

Do you not get why a probability distribution does not tell the whole story?

Are you trying to learn or simply trying to troll?

Please tell me so I know whether or not I should simply put you on ignore.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Has nothing about the mathematics of randomness I have presented here gotten through to you at all?

Do you not get why a probability distribution does not tell the whole story?

Are you trying to learn or simply trying to troll?

Please tell me so I know whether or not I should simply put you on ignore.

Actually, quite honestly, it is you and articulett who seem not to understand the so-called "mathematics of randomness". Both of you have deliberately redefined "random" and "predictable" to suit your purposes. The point of calling something "random" is that each the out come of each trail cannot be predicted with any sort of accuracy before the experiment is performed. If you are flipping a coin, you know that you are guaranteed of getting "heads" or "tails", but it is impossible to say for sure which you will get with each trail (or can you. cyborg?). So, outcomes of random experiments are predictable in so far as you are guaranteed of a specific set of results (e.g., either "heads" or "tails" for coin tosses) but the information that is predictable isn't very useful if you want to predict a specific outcome.

Furthermore, you have not even endeavored to explain "how a probability distribution does not tell the whole story". You seem content to wave your hands and make bad analogies to engineering and poker.

So, my dear cyborg, you have some 'splaining to do?

 

[cyborg]

Furthermore, you have not even endeavored to explain "how a probability distribution does not tell the whole story". You seem content to wave your hands and make bad analogies to engineering and poker.

****, you really haven't read anything I've said have you? I've explained several times so here's one final attempt. Pay attention now.

The sequence: THTHTHTH

Is describable by the probabilities P(T) = 0.5, P(H) = 0.5

But it is also describable by the machine T -> H, H -> T

Do you understand this?

 

[Meadmaker]

Has nothing about the mathematics of randomness I have presented here gotten through to you at all?

Do you not get why a probability distribution does not tell the whole story?

Are you trying to learn or simply trying to troll?

Please tell me so I know whether or not I should simply put you on ignore.

You're wrong.

A probability distribution does, in fact, tell the whole story.

One reason many people think it does not is that they are confusing probability and statistics. If you are looking at a sequence of existing numbers, you aren't using probability.

 

[cyborg]

You're wrong.

No, I'm really not.

A probability distribution does, in fact, tell the whole story.

No, it really doesn't.

If you are looking at a sequence of existing numbers, you aren't using probability.

Huh... last time I checked the study of evolution was empirical.

 

[Meadmaker]

****, you really haven't read anything I've said have you? I've explained several times so here's one final attempt. Pay attention now.

The sequence: THTHTHTH

Is describable by the probabilities P(T) = 0.5, P(H) = 0.5

But it is also describable by the machine T -> H, H -> T

Do you understand this?

He might, but you don't.

The sequence you posted is an existing sequence. One could make a reasonable inference about the next element in the sequence based on the existing data. Most people would draw the inference that the sequence will continue to alternate, THTH. In that case, the probability density function for the event (X,N), where N is the position in the sequence and X is from the set {H,T} is P(H,N}=0 for odd numbered N, and P(H,N)=1 for even numbered N. If you used the probability density function you posted, you would make incorrect predictions about future coin tosses.

 

[mijopaalmc]

****, you really haven't read anything I've said have you? I've explained several times so here's one final attempt. Pay attention now.

The sequence: THTHTHTH

Is describable by the probabilities P(T) = 0.5, P(H) = 0.5

But it is also describable by the machine T -> H, H -> T

Do you understand this?

But there is no way of telling the difference between the two, and the second description is based on the assumption that the universe or at least the process of evolution is a "machine" which is an assumption without any evidence. Schneibster has covered this once before when discussing global hidden variables: Occam's razor favors the non-existence of global hidden variables. I would say that the proposition that natural processes are "machines" is a statement about a hidden variable, because, as of yet, the "machine" description only describes natural processes in a different way and does not make any novel predictions that distinguish it from the current "random" description.

 

[jimbob]

I nominate rittjc for the following post:

]

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?

Not really

Nylonase (which is your artificial name)

Give me some natural names, or ones given from God.

Maybe I should have had NFSB tags instead of "spoiler"

 

[cyborg]

The sequence you posted is an existing sequence.

Well Meadmaker if you can model the probabilities of something without an existing sequence then good for you.

Last time I checked empiricism was a posteriori not a priori though.

So you tell me: does being able to model some natural event probabilistically entail that it is random?

Are you really going to tell me that genetic algorithms have true randomness in them when I know for a damn fact that a psuedorandom number generator is entirely determined?

But there is no way of telling the difference between the two,

THAT WOULD BE MY POINT.

Occam's razor favors the non-existence of global hidden variables.

It does not favour the non-existence of a complex system just because it is hard to build a predicting machine for it.

So when you tell me that because of two eggs that because one of them might be eaten evolution is random I tell you it is a complex game. It wasn't random that an egg got eaten - there was another agent in the system that performed that act.

You are mistaking performing an analysis on the overall properties one might expect to see arise in a complex system with presuming that the complex system is in fact random.

 

[mijopaalmc]

THAT WOULD BE MY POINT.

It does not favour the non-existence of a complex system just because it is hard to build a predicting machine for it.

So when you tell me that because of two eggs that because one of them might be eaten evolution is random I tell you it is a complex game. It wasn't random that an egg got eaten - there was another agent in the system that performed that act.

You are mistaking performing an analysis on the overall properties one might expect to see arise in a complex system with presuming that the complex system is in fact random.

Frankly, cyborg, your point is a bit pointless.

Occam's says: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". That is exactly what you are doing when you propose a "complex system" with as yet unspecified rules over the rather simple "random system". This is not to say that evolution by natural selection cannot be such a complex system. How, from our current state of knowledge, the "complex system" and the "random system" appear identical and applying Occam's razor provides us with a compelling reason to go with the simple and well-defined "random system" instead of the nebulously defined "complex system".

 

[cyborg]

How, from our current state of knowledge, the "complex system" and the "random system" appear identical

You've got to be kidding me: the interaction of life on Earth does not constitute a complex system? Are you still going to insist that it is better to think of the egg that survives as having flipped a coin rather than faced a challenge of a complex game?

It appears when you shave you take off your face too.

 

[Hokulele]

Frankly, cyborg, your point is a bit pointless.

Occam's says: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". That is exactly what you are doing when you propose a "complex system" with as yet unspecified rules over the rather simple "random system". This is not to say that evolution by natural selection cannot be such a complex system. How, from our current state of knowledge, the "complex system" and the "random system" appear identical and applying Occam's razor provides us with a compelling reason to go with the simple and well-defined "random system" instead of the nebulously defined "complex system".

Jumping back in for a second, the statement I bolded is not true. I strongly recommend you read James Gleick's Chaos - Making a New Science. Chaos theory and mathematical modeling conclusively prove that complex systems are not necessarily random. Chemical chaos modeling and the transparency of a strange attractor demonstrate this marvelously. One of the original lectures at the Univeristy of Arizona that sparked a movement in the study of biological ecosystems was actually entitled "Order in Chaos."

 

[mijopaalmc]

You've got to be kidding me: the interaction of life on Earth does not constitute a complex system? Are you still going to insist that it is better to think of the egg that survives as having flipped a coin rather than faced a challenge of a complex game?

It appears when you shave you take off your face too.

That's not what I was saying, and you know that that's not what I'm saying. Yet again, I compliment you on your deliberate misrepresentation of my arguments (and you wonder why people call you a liar?).

I have never denied that the network of interactions amongst entities on Earth in extremely complex. We are, however, discussing the nature of the interactions amongst entities on Earth. You seem to be saying that the outcome of each interaction is determined in some complex, unspecified way that could conceivably be reproduced if the initial conditions could be reproduced to the desired degree of precision (which, Hokulele, is the definition of "chaos" with which I am most familiar in so far as chaotic behavior arises from a deterministic system's extreme sensitivity to initial conditions rather than its fundamental indeterminacy). I am saying that outcome of each interaction is "determined" in some simple, well-specified way that cannot necessarily be reproduced even if the initial conditions could be reproduced to the desired degree of precision. The latter is very well-described in the literature on the application of stochastic processes to evolution by natural selection whereas the former, at least if my interpretation of what you are saying is correct (which you will most probably deny), is a bunch of hand waving and redefining words to suit one's purpose.

In essence, cyborg, you need to come up with a sketch of how the "complex system" determines the interactions between entities in a way that is testably distinct from how a "random system" functions or cite some literature that does. Until then you are, as Schneibster likes to say, "arguing philosophy, not science".

 

[Hokulele]

That's not what I was saying, and you know that that's not what I'm saying. Yet again, I compliment you on your deliberate misrepresentation of my arguments (and you wonder why people call you a liar?).

I have never denied that the network of interactions amongst entities on Earth in extremely complex. We are, however, discussing the nature of the interactions amongst entities on Earth. You seem to be saying that the outcome of each interaction is determined in some complex, unspecified way that could conceivably be reproduced if the initial conditions could be reproduced to the desired degree of precision (which, Hokulele, is the definition of "chaos" with which I am most familiar in so far as chaotic behavior arises from a deterministic system's extreme sensitivity to initial conditions rather than its fundamental indeterminacy). I am saying that outcome of each interaction is "determined" in some simple, well-specified way that cannot necessarily be reproduced even if the initial conditions could be reproduced to the desired degree of precision. The latter is very well-described in the literature on the application of stochastic processes to evolution by natural selection whereas the former, at least if my interpretation of what you are saying is correct (which you will most probably deny), is a bunch of hand waving and redefining words to suit one's purpose.

In essence, cyborg, you need to come up with a sketch of how the "complex system" determines the interactions between entities in a way that is testably distinct from how a "random system" functions or cite some literature that does. Until then you are, as Schneibster likes to say, "arguing philosophy, not science".

This is why I suggested you read the book. Chaos, like random, can have multiple interpretations. Predicting future behavior based on existing conditions is only one branch, and that was an early one. Modeling complex systems is a much more common application of chaos theory these days. Weather dynamics, ecological studies, fluid dynamics, and chemistry all benefit strongly from chaos theory.

In fact, your misinterpretation of the meaning of chaos theory is exactly why cyborg and articulett are making such a fuss about the meaning of the word random. By choosing the incorrect definition, you lose the meaning of my point.

 

[Schneibster]

Jumping back in for a second, the statement I bolded is not true. I strongly recommend you read James Gleick's Chaos - Making a New Science. Chaos theory and mathematical modeling conclusively prove that complex systems are not necessarily random. Chemical chaos modeling and the transparency of a strange attractor demonstrate this marvelously. One of the original lectures at the Univeristy of Arizona that sparked a movement in the study of biological ecosystems was actually entitled "Order in Chaos."

I think there may be confusion over "random" and "chaotic." Chaotic processes that are sensitively dependent upon initial conditions are not generally repeatable. This is because the sensitivity is beyond the capability of instruments to generate a meaningfully repeatable starting point. In some cases, due to Heisenberg Uncertainty, if the sensitivity is great enough, it may be beyond the theoretical reach of any possible instrument to generate a repeatable starting point.

Mijo's point, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the results of a single test of such phenomena are essentially random among the possible outcomes. That is not to say the outcomes are random; when you flip a coin, there are three possible outcomes, two with probabilities very near 0.5 and one with an extremely low probability: heads, tails, or on edge. You will always get one of these results; which result you will get is unpredictable. And evolution- both in terms of mutation, and in terms of selection- is sensitively dependent upon initial conditions, and therefore is random in the sense that there may be constraints on what outcomes are possible, but it is impossible to predict which among those outcomes will actually take place.

If you say to most people, "coin flips are random," they will agree with you. If you say "coin flips are non-random," they will most likely disagree. If you say, "coin flips are orderly," and explain that by "orderly" you mean that as the number of trials increases, the percentage of trials with the two equal probabilities will approach equality, they will most probably agree once they understand what you are saying. This is the type of randomness, and the type of order, that evolution shows.