What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[jimbob]

If a mutation initialy arises from a single ancestor.

This mutation could be:

1) Beneficial (the trait improves the chance of reprduction in the organism's environment)

2) Neutral, it has no affect on the organism's chances of reproduction in a particular environment.

3) Harmful, it reduces the organism's chances of reproduction.

Assuming that the population is stable, and for simplicity but no other reason that the reproduction is asexual; without this trait, the probable number of offspring would fit a poission distribution with lambda of 1.

If a trait is advantageous,then lambda would be greater than 1, if deleterious, less than one.

Even if the trait is beneficial, confering, say a 10% advantage, it is not unlikely that it would fail to be reproduced. (indeed according to this calculator, there is a 33% chance of zero offspring.

You need to examine the probabilities before you can decide whether it is possible to simplify the statemeny to "natural selection is nonrandom". For that you need a large enough population.

 

[Hokulele]

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.

Yes and no. I am not talking about the intial conditions, but rather the multi-variable, non-linear dynamics involved when you are looking at populations in flux (natural selection) as opposed to single point mutations. I believe that everyone agrees that the single point mutation portion (initial conditions) is random. However, the population dynamics are not random, but rather a chaotic system. I can see why my point can be considered confusing, as most people assume that chaos modeling is strictly about initial conditions, and there really is more to it than that. The equations that result in a Lorentz Attractor are a perfect example of complexity arising from simplicity, non-linear, but yet deterministic.

Sorry to digress, but this was mostly in response to a comment about complexity, more so than true randomness (whatever that may mean).

 

[Foster Zygote]

So how is natural selection non-random?

Because the environment selects individuals that are better suited to survive in that environment. Genes that lead to greater reproductive success will leave more copies of themselves in successive generations.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

I can't model the probabilities of a sequence. I can compute the statistics of a sequence, but I can't model the probabilities of a sequence. The term isn't defined.

Yes, the distinction is subtle, but it is real.

Normally, I try to avoid being this blunt, but when I see something like:

****, 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.

Followed by something that is just plain wrong, I get a bit miffed.

Your explanation that followed the "Pay attention now" statement was wrong. It was just, plain, wrong. You can take my word for it, or you can look it up, or you can disregard my comment. That's up to you, but if you tell someone, "Pay attention now", try to get it right.

This time, you didn't. I understand that you think you did, but you didn't. If you really want to prove me wrong, look it up. Try and find a probabilty textbook that says anything at all about a probability density function for

The sequence: THTHTHTH

You can't do it, because the term isn't defined for a sequence. The closest thing you might find is a pdf for each element in the sequence.

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

Yes.

ETA: Correction - If an accurate model requires probability, then it is random. An accurate model of natural selection requires probability. Therefore, it is random. Let's go back to my previous question (just before the rittjc diversion). Tell me any prediction you can make about the future state of the world, predicted by the theory of evolution, that does not include a probability function.

 

[Schneibster]

Yes and no. I am not talking about the intial conditions, but rather the multi-variable, non-linear dynamics involved when you are looking at populations in flux (natural selection) as opposed to single point mutations.

I simplified to make it more accessible; but the full dynamics are, IMO, implicit in that simplified model, albeit not obviously so.

I believe that everyone agrees that the single point mutation portion (initial conditions) is random.

I don't think you are going to get agreement on that point, and if you do, then someone has changed their opinion and isn't admitting it. Both mijo and I said essentially this in multiple posts, and were ignored, insulted, and had our points completely glossed over. The politics have introduced a dynamic that has more to do with "proving someone wrong" than with any rational investigation of phenomena; I welcome your presence in the thread.

However, the population dynamics are not random, but rather a chaotic system. I can see why my point can be considered confusing, as most people assume that chaos modeling is strictly about initial conditions, and there really is more to it than that. The equations that result in a Lorentz Attractor are a perfect example of complexity arising from simplicity, non-linear, but yet deterministic.

Yes; I agree completely. But never forget that there are no realistic "initial conditions;" there are only the conditions we choose to begin a simulation from. And even if we could identify true initial conditions for evolution of life on Earth, it is extremely unlikely that we would produce precisely the species we now see. I'm not sure it's not impossible, unless one has an awful lot of computer time available; say, several billion years or so.

Sorry to digress, but this was mostly in response to a comment about complexity, more so than true randomness (whatever that may mean).

I don't see it as a digression; the point is, is the type of determinism we're talking about here really definable as "non-random?" I don't think it is; that doesn't mean it's random, just that "non-random" isn't a particularly good way to describe it.

 

[articulett]

Because the environment selects individuals that are better suited to survive in that environment. Genes that lead to greater reproductive success will leave more copies of themselves in successive generations.

Nice explanation, but he's had a million of them. He cannot compute anything that allows for the comprehension that some part of evolution might be "non-random". He's done this by defining random as "of or related to a probability distribution"... and declared that anything that has randomness in it, is a "stochastic process" and therefore "random". He has stated that random is a synonym for stochastic. So no matter how you slice it, per Mijo's definition of random, every process is random...and every thing that contains matter is random...and the evolution of everything is random. Poker is as random as is roulette and indistinguishable in randomness per Mijo's definition.

People are upset with me because I've called him (Mijo) an "intelligent design proponent". But it's this imperviousness to the idea that his description of evolution is so vague as to be meaningless that is the clincher. He just doesn't seem to comprehend natural selection and he obfuscates the same way Behe does. So Meadmaker and Schneibster are upset because I am calling someone that complimented them a creationist, so now they have an ego need to protect him and say I'm a liar or whatever. And so they are feeding him vagaries and hearing what they want to hear from what he says. I think they may even conclude like he has that the answer to the OP is "there is no evidence for evolution being non-random".

Dawkins has called natural selection the "opposite of random" and all biologists go to some effort to distinguish the deterministic aspects of natural selection to avoid the damn 747 in the junkyard analogy, and Mijo contends that Dawkins is wrong, but offers nothing better. He has concluded that there is no evidence that anything about evolution is non-random despite the fact that his OP suggest that he wanted to know how the order came about or why Dawkins would call natural selection non-random. It's been a thread of semantic games so that Mijo can call evolution random. If you don't want to be caught in the fray, you can agree with him him... that per is vague definition of random...it is random.

He'll contend that he is using random in a way that is "rigorous" and imply that other credible scientists are using it that way, but he'll provide no peer reviewed papers saying so and do a semantic dance to show that some scientist somewhere is saying what he's saying...(i.e. "evolution is random; Dawkins is wrong).

This, of course, is an old creationist canard. Pretend the scientists are saying it all happened by chance... so that nobody understands natural selection. Because, once you actually understand the beautiful simplicity of natural selection and how it creates seeming design... an intelligent designer is superfluous.

So, my take on this thread is that Mijo is using lots of words and emotions to say nothing at all and asking insincere questions every step of the way. And Schneibster and Meadmaker are defending him because they feel I've unjustly accused him of being an "intelligent design" proponent because they think they know an "intelligent design" proponent when they see one.

This thread shouldn't be about what I think. It should be about the OP. And many have answered just as you have and peer reviewed papers defining random and calling natural selection "not random" have been provided...but Mijo cannot accept any evidence which will allow him to conclude that any part of evolution is "non-random". Assorted intelligent design proponents have popped in to obfuscate more and conclude that "evolution is random". Jim-Bob, Schneibster, and Meadmaker either don't really understand natural selection or cannot convey how the order comes about via exponential replication of "winners" and they think that the real problem is that people don't understand what the word "random" means. They don't believe that the notion that "scientists think this all came about by chance" is a major creationist misconception. They don't understand how confusion in this area, makes an intelligent designer seem necessary.

Most have said that the term "random" is so damn ambiguous and prone to misinterpretation that they wouldn't use it to describe natural selection.

And that's the brief recap from my thread for anyone who wishes to spare themselves the gory details of the pages past.

 

[articulett]

Oh, and I'm the only one calling Mijo a creationist... Cyborg is just using his wit and intelligence as a stage for Mijo to reveal that Mijo has a complete inability to hear the answer to his OP question, because he decided on the answer from the beginning. To Mijo, there is no evidence in the world that will ever convince him that Evolution is "not random" as meaningful or meaningless as that term may be. Nor will any evidence convince him that he is being vague and misleading if he wants to call natural selection random.

They are taking what they perceive as random events in an environment (meteors, ebola, thorns)... and using that to call natural selection "random". They don't seem to understand that the environment is the filter...DNA must build organisms that survive and replicate in whatever environment they find themselves in or they cannot be a part of evolution. Everything in the environment has some cause...even mutations have a cause but they are random as to whether they will help an organism or not. They are blind. We just never see all the losers...the environment only picks winners.

 

[Wings]

mijopaalmc, what do you think scientists mean when they say that evolution is non-random? What do you think they are using non-random to mean in the context of evolutionary theory?

 

[articulett]

Yes.

ETA: Correction - If an accurate model requires probability, then it is random. An accurate model of natural selection requires probability. Therefore, it is random. Let's go back to my previous question (just before the rittjc diversion). Tell me any prediction you can make about the future state of the world, predicted by the theory of evolution, that does not include a probability function.

So then it's random as to whether two carriers of sickle trait have a child with sickle cell anemia? And it's random as to whether you get an A on a test? And it's random as to whether seat belts save lives? -- and what passes through a sieve is random. If you have a royal flush, your chances of winning are random. That's just a piss-poor non-descriptive vague use of random. If you want to convey how order comes from randomness you better quit describing random as "any model that requires probability"... or provide at least one peer reviewed paper that describes random in that way.

 

[mijopaalmc]

mijopaalmc, what do you think scientists mean when they say that evolution is non-random?

Something akin to evolution being a directed process that results in order, but for the millionth time the multitudes of limit theorems in probability and statistics imply that this is a result of multiple sampling events, not some underlying determinism to the process itself.

I hope this demonstrates that I am not trying to undermine evolution by saying that it is "random", but that the perceived order of evolution by natural selection is a result of the repetitious nature of the process, not inherent determinism.

 

[Wings]

Thanks, that's all I needed to know. I understand your position now.

 

[articulett]

Yes and no. I am not talking about the intial conditions, but rather the multi-variable, non-linear dynamics involved when you are looking at populations in flux (natural selection) as opposed to single point mutations. I believe that everyone agrees that the single point mutation portion (initial conditions) is random.

Just a clarity point. All mutations on the information level are considered random because they happen without regard to whether they are beneficial to an organism or not. It's not just point mutations...there are insertions, deletions, non-disjunction, translocations, ERVs, sexual recombination, fusion, etc. It's not completely "random", because there are hot spots and we know of some things that make for imperfect fidelity in copying...But for understanding evolution, suffice to say that "mutations" are random". It's pretty easy to understand no matter what your interpretation of random and it's generally correct.

But, of course, the important part of understanding evolution is understanding how the order comes about from the environment choosing or acting as a culling machine for the information contained in the best replicators. Things look designed from a human perspective because life and the environment evolve together...life forms drive the evolution of other life forms to find niches in whatever environment they find themselves in. Trees grow tall, not because it's beneficial for trees--it's because those that can't, die out...they can't get the su...nature selects for tall trees. Trees don't know or care about this. But if the genes they have confer tallness, they preferentially survive by getting more sunlight (from which they make food and build their mass). This isn't random. Rather, the environment selected for tall trees. When a meteor hit the planet, the stuff that survived, survived for reasons. To the extent that these reasons were contained in the information in their genes or the location of where they live--they were passed on to offspring.

So, the "chaos" of environmental stress (whether small or large) is a part of the selection process...and not a part of the pool of information building organisms that are then selected. The environment (including sexual selection) is the selector...the information building organisms is the selected in battles that the organisms they build fight.

DNA gets passed on because it builds organisms that copy them...and the best copy machines get passed on preferentially...exponentially...not randomly.

 

[articulett]

Something akin to evolution being a directed process that results in order, but for the millionth time the multitudes of limit theorems in probability and statistics imply that this is a result of multiple sampling events, not some underlying determinism to the process itself.

I hope this demonstrates that I am not trying to undermine evolution by saying that it is "random", but that the perceived order of evolution by natural selection is a result of the repetitious nature of the process, not inherent determinism.

Why is what your say for clarification purposes always even less clear than what you are trying to clarify. Your definition of evolution is leaving out the very important fact that the order is determined by the fact that the best replicators increase exponentially and drive the evolution of the other life forms in whatever environment they find themselves in. The order doesn't just come about by the repetitions of randomness or whatever the hell you are saying. Maybe galaxies form spiral natures due to chaos and interactions with the environment--but they do not replicate and increase that order exponentially. Life does. All humans have a most recent common ancestor and that is not "random"...except of course, unless you use random the way you seem to use it and are purposely trying to obfuscate. That was determined by the fact that success begets exponential success... To dismiss this as random or acausal or not determined or whatever else you want to use is leaving out the reason things look designed but aren't. If your definition of the process applies equally to the tornado in a junkyard analogy...you've got yourself a completely useless definition... unless you are trying to obfuscate understanding, of course.

Per a peer review papered as requested in the OP. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/suppl_1/8567

Natural selection accounts for the "design" of organisms because adaptive variations tend to increase the probability of survival and reproduction of their carriers at the expense of maladaptive, or less adaptive, variations. The arguments of intelligent design proponents that state the incredible improbability of chance events, such as mutation, to account for the adaptations of organisms are irrelevant because evolution is not governed by random mutations. Rather, there is a natural process (namely, natural selection) that is not random but oriented and able to generate order or "create." The traits that organisms acquire in their evolutionary histories are not fortuitous but rather determined by their functional utility to the organisms, designed, as it were, to serve their life needs.

Of course, you aren't using their definition of determined or random, right...because you're just using "of or related to a probability distribution" and "not related to a probability distribution". So something is only "determined" to Mijo if you can't relate it to a probability distribution, and therefore the peer reviewed scientist is "wrong" and Mijo can continue to believe that he's right in saying there is no evidence that evolution is not random. So the first sentence in this paragraph leads you to conclude evolution IS random. Pathetic. It sure does take a lot of semantic juggling to keep fooling yourself, doesn't it?

P.S. What the hell is "inherent determinism" and who but a creationists uses words so bizarrely? And how does the order come about by "mere repetition"... or whatever it is you are claiming--what does that even mean? All credible scientists will answer your question by saying pretty much what Ayala has said above. Of course, they won't realize that you are using your own special definition of words so that you can say, "evolution says that life arose through random chance" even though no biologist or person trying to clarify understanding would ever say such a misleading thing.... you will use your own special definitions so that the way order comes about is not conveyed either because you don't understand how that order comes about...and/or you don't want others to understand that scientists do not think it came about "randomly".

 

[rittjc]

If a mutation initialy arises from a single ancestor.

This mutation could be:

1) Beneficial (the trait improves the chance of reprduction in the organism's environment)

2) Neutral, it has no affect on the organism's chances of reproduction in a particular environment.

3) Harmful, it reduces the organism's chances of reproduction.

Assuming that the population is stable, and for simplicity but no other reason that the reproduction is asexual; without this trait, the probable number of offspring would fit a poission distribution with lambda of 1.

If a trait is advantageous,then lambda would be greater than 1, if deleterious, less than one.

Even if the trait is beneficial, confering, say a 10% advantage, it is not unlikely that it would fail to be reproduced. (indeed according to this calculator, there is a 33% chance of zero offspring.

You need to examine the probabilities before you can decide whether it is possible to simplify the statemeny to "natural selection is nonrandom". For that you need a large enough population.

Your assumption is extremely flawed and biased. Genetic mutations are almost always 100% destructive. There is a reason for that. Changes would have to be massive and coordinated before the change would become something reasonable or even recognizable. It is very very very simplistic to think that difference in one amino acid to another would be a simple "single bit" error in a mutated codon. Mutating a gene to another gene is to say that precise mutations of incalculable beneficial changes. You can't simply change a bit and it come out a new form of amino acid and that form of amino acid causes a shift from one viable form of protein to another to cause a shift from one cell type to another to another creature all together.

That is like saying if I randomly change a single bit of Adobe Acrobat, it becomes Adobe Workshop. But it is far more a ridiculous stretch than even that. It goes to show what I have been saying is the evolutionists have no idea whatsoever how complex on all levels from amino acids to proteins to cells to organisms that life is and they entertain such a simplistic world were a single minute change chains into a completely new gene with new behavior. The complexity of a single gene is still infinitely more complex than say Microsoft Windows and to assign such simplicity to its complex structure is to say you don't have the slightest clue of how living organisms are composed.

It boggles the mind they way you people marginalize the complexity of a gene. You are right back to the position of claiming the cell is full of "goop" again. They are fully analogous. I defy anyone to prove a gene is as complex a structure that improbable changes could result in any reasonable structural change.

This is asinine. This kind of thinking is absolutely insane. It is a complete denial of the complexity of life.

How can anyone get traction with such vivid and irrational imaginations and how can they not be so ashamed of having such a childishly naive understanding of life forms?

This is bizarre!

 

[Meadmaker]

Your assumption is extremely flawed and biased. Genetic mutations are almost always 100% destructive.

There's that word "almost" again.

What do you suppose happens to the few that aren't?

 

[articulett]

There's that word "almost" again.

What do you suppose happens to the few that aren't?

They drive evolution... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

And few would call this random.

And I think rttjc's post will show you why.

And you'll understand why creationists want people to think that "scientists think this all came about randomly"--although every biologist will take incredible effort to explain natural selection and the way that what we see, is far from a random process. Success begets success. Every life form is competing for a place in whatever environment they find themselves in driving the evolution of them all...we don't ever see the infinite number of failures, only the incremental growth of the successes.

Of course, no amount of evidence will get a creationist to understand the simple explanation as to why we see design where there is none. Humans evolved to see design where there is none...because such abilities conferred survival/reproductive advantages. Here is one of my favorite examples of seeming design where none was intended: http://www.heatherfirth.com/pdf/nerve_com.pdf And all life forms are engaged in a big experiment to see which ones will survive and copy themselves the most...even tumors and viruses...

 

[articulett]

A creationist will never concede the fact that things can be "designed" from the bottom up... just like the internet... everyone participating is building it--nobody is in charge...and nobody understands it all... That's what life on this planet is doing...And just like hubs beget more connections...and faster spreading of info.-- replication of DNA beget more and better replicators. It just makes so much sense once you intuit this that an intelligent designer seems superfluous. That is why creationists do every kind of semantic goal post moving possible--anything to keep themselves and others from understanding the simplicity of the actual explanation. The cruelty and waste and deformities make sense...the seeming intricacy of design with the look of being cobbled together and tweaked through time... you understand that you aren't a wretched anything born in sin... just someone who came to be in a long line of successful replications...someone lucky enough to live in a time when you could understand this and share the info. with others and learn more about what DNA is telling us without any intension on it's part. We may have been "an accident"--but most life is unplanned...we don't have a choice about being born or dying. And we most certainly did not arrive here randomly--but through a long chain of successful replications, the majority of which we share with other life forms on this planet.

 

[Hokulele]

I simplified to make it more accessible; but the full dynamics are, IMO, implicit in that simplified model, albeit not obviously so.

You are right, I just wanted to haul it out in the full non-simplified glory since it isn't always obvious. See, isn't it pretty?

I don't think you are going to get agreement on that point, and if you do, then someone has changed their opinion and isn't admitting it. Both mijo and I said essentially this in multiple posts, and were ignored, insulted, and had our points completely glossed over. The politics have introduced a dynamic that has more to do with "proving someone wrong" than with any rational investigation of phenomena; I welcome your presence in the thread.

Yes; I agree completely. But never forget that there are no realistic "initial conditions;" there are only the conditions we choose to begin a simulation from. And even if we could identify true initial conditions for evolution of life on Earth, it is extremely unlikely that we would produce precisely the species we now see. I'm not sure it's not impossible, unless one has an awful lot of computer time available; say, several billion years or so.

I don't see it as a digression; the point is, is the type of determinism we're talking about here really definable as "non-random?" I don't think it is; that doesn't mean it's random, just that "non-random" isn't a particularly good way to describe it.

See my point at the end of this post.

Just a clarity point. All mutations on the information level are considered random because they happen without regard to whether they are beneficial to an organism or not. It's not just point mutations...there are insertions, deletions, non-disjunction, translocations, ERVs, sexual recombination, fusion, etc. It's not completely "random", because there are hot spots and we know of some things that make for imperfect fidelity in copying...But for understanding evolution, suffice to say that "mutations" are random". It's pretty easy to understand no matter what your interpretation of random and it's generally correct.

Thanks, that is what I meant, and I did forget to mention changes other than point mutations.

But, of course, the important part of understanding evolution is understanding how the order comes about from the environment choosing or acting as a culling machine for the information contained in the best replicators. Things look designed from a human perspective because life and the environment evolve together...life forms drive the evolution of other life forms to find niches in whatever environment they find themselves in. Trees grow tall, not because it's beneficial for trees--it's because those that can't, die out...they can't get the su...nature selects for tall trees. Trees don't know or care about this. But if the genes they have confer tallness, they preferentially survive by getting more sunlight (from which they make food and build their mass). This isn't random. Rather, the environment selected for tall trees. When a meteor hit the planet, the stuff that survived, survived for reasons. To the extent that these reasons were contained in the information in their genes or the location of where they live--they were passed on to offspring.

So, the "chaos" of environmental stress (whether small or large) is a part of the selection process...and not a part of the pool of information building organisms that are then selected. The environment (including sexual selection) is the selector...the information building organisms is the selected in battles that the organisms they build fight.

DNA gets passed on because it builds organisms that copy them...and the best copy machines get passed on preferentially...exponentially...not randomly.

The part I have bolded is the bit I was trying to get across. Natural selection is a multi-variable process, not just a single event. The few posts I went back to read seem to be focusing too much on individual events (snakes eating eggs and all that), and not the system as a whole. This is where chaos modeling can show the underlying patterns in apparently random processes, such as fluid dynamics, or speciation and ecology. Although these systems are very complex, and many people would call them random (think of how clouds develop), people who study this sort of thing see them with very different eyes.

I think this is the heart of why it is so important to agree on terms when discussing complex systems. I mean heck, even the word "evolution" is inappropriate when discussing speciation.

 

[Schneibster]

You are right, I just wanted to haul it out in the full non-simplified glory since it isn't always obvious. See, isn't it pretty?

Yes! It is. It's a major part of the attraction of science for me: when I figured out that all this complex stuff around us boils down to these really simple rules operating on really simple objects, I really thought it was the coolest thing ever, and I still think so.

Natural selection is a multi-variable process, not just a single event. The few posts I went back to read seem to be focusing too much on individual events (snakes eating eggs and all that), and not the system as a whole. This is where chaos modeling can show the underlying patterns in apparently random processes, such as fluid dynamics, or speciation and ecology. Although these systems are very complex, and many people would call them random (think of how clouds develop), people who study this sort of thing see them with very different eyes.

Absolutely. It doesn't "just happen." And it's not just about the simple things and the simple rules- there is a whole branch of mathematics that drives this stuff that we didn't really start to seriously explore until the second half of the twentieth century- some might even argue the last third of it. Big systems really aren't just the sum of the small systems that make them up. These small systems interact in ways that are impossible for the things that make them up to interact. Complexity, chaos, non-linear dynamical systems- call it what you want, it's a new way of looking at large systems.

I think this is the heart of why it is so important to agree on terms when discussing complex systems. I mean heck, even the word "evolution" is inappropriate when discussing speciation.

Precisely. You have a gift with words.

 

[articulett]

I agree hokulele... speciation tends to get tossed in with evolution because it's the most salient part of what we observe. Heck abiogenesis and the big bang get tossed in as well. Any aspect of science that a creationist can use to try and sound sciency will be tossed in. It would be nice if biologists could just say things simply because it really is simple. But just as google has an algorhithm that brings order and bases "fitness" on how many people use a search term or link to a site-- evolution has an algorithm based on what information gets itself copied the most. The order isn't "random" in the results google returns in the same way that what survives natural selection isn't random. And it IS dynamic and chaotic which can be synonymous for random, but ends up confusing understanding of natural selection more than it clarifies. Generally, random is seen as a singular event unrelated to a past event (dice rolls have no memory) and/or as all possibilities being equally probable-- so when it used to define natural selection it obfuscates how the successes multiply exponentially. The randomness doesn't drive the changes we observe through time...it's the information in the pool of randomness that manages to get itself copied the most that drives everything we can observe about evolution. Natural Selection is responsible for the "seeming design" and incremental complexity--not randomness.