What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[cyborg]

Well thanks for that insight Meadmaker - now, when are you going to admit you made a pretty stupid mistake with your genetic algorithm argument?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

a) Is not a part of the theory of evolution. While there is no reason to expect supernatural interference, this area is still up for grabs, and only Occam's Razor prevents sensible people from thinking that God (or a Designer, if you want) did it. Creationists can insert their favourite deity here.

You just called millions of brilliant individuals senseless. I dare say that chances are many of those you've labeled are more intelligent than yourself, but that is just a guess. Believing in a deity is not senseless. You just don't like the fact that most humans do.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well thanks for that insight Meadmaker - now, when are you going to admit you made a pretty stupid mistake with your genetic algorithm argument?

Right after you find that probability book that defines the probability of a sequence.




But about those genetic algorithms, you asserted that I must have used a pseudo-random number generator. Actually, most of the time I did, but not always. In one case, I was building a circuit and I didn't have a processor, so I didn't have a random number generator to work with. I used electrical noise. It was no problem, though, because the statistics of the sequence produced were identical, so it made no difference in the outcome.

 

[cyborg]

Right after you find that probability book that defines the probability of a sequence.

Why would I do that? To compound your misunderstanding of my point?

But about those genetic algorithms, you asserted that I must have used a pseudo-random number generator.

Actually it was your assertion that without randomness a genetic algorithm would not work I objected to because this is simply not the case at all.

 

[steenkh]

You just called millions of brilliant individuals senseless. I dare say that chances are many of those you've labeled are more intelligent than yourself, but that is just a guess. Believing in a deity is not senseless. You just don't like the fact that most humans do.

I used the word 'sensible', and the opposite is not 'sense-less'. but nevertheless, I should perhaps have used the word 'rational'.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

I used the word 'sensible', and the opposite is not 'sense-less'.I

I understood your post as saying people who believed in a deity were stupid.

Exempli gratia, senseless.

(3. stupid or foolish, as persons or actions. )

My mistake.

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually it was your assertion that without randomness a genetic algorithm would not work I objected to because this is simply not the case at all.

Because pseudo-randomness is good enough? Well, if that's your point, yeah, I guess so.

ETA:

My point was that the elements of the sequence

HTHTHTHTHT

were not described by the same probability density function as the elements of a sequence of fair coin flips.

Now, that isn't a very important point at all. In fact, I can't think of any reason to bring it up, except for one. You were busy lecturing someone about being wrong, when you yourself were wrong. Mijo has gotten it correct at every turn, and the fact that you've missed the point is not his fault.

 

[jimbob]

Mijo, maybe it would be a good idea to have a signature stating your view*, that evolution is a stochastic process, and this can explain how humanity arose without any need for supernatural intervention.

That might save you repeating every ten pages that you are not a proponent of Intelligent design...


ETA
*this is obviously my reading of your posts, but seems a fairly accurate summary.

 

[mijopaalmc]

cyborg-

Just because the Earth is a complex system doesn't mean that it is a complex deterministic machine.

It is possible to build complex processes in a probabilistic manner.

 

[cyborg]

Because pseudo-randomness is good enough? Well, if that's your point, yeah, I guess so.

Well there are two components there.

First psuedo-randomness is good enough.

Secondly simply iterating through all possible solutions is good enough.

Now there are reasons why the later is worse than the former and true randomness would be even better but only in terms of time - not in what can be computed.

My point was that the elements of the sequence

HTHTHTHTHT

were not described by the same probability density function as the elements of a sequence of fair coin flips.

And yet it is a perfectly valid sequence for a fair coin.

Problematic no?

Now, that isn't a very important point at all. In fact, I can't think of any reason to bring it up, except for one. You were busy lecturing someone about being wrong, when you yourself were wrong.

Uhhh... no. This is an issue of a priori vs a posteriori - the problem is that you, mijo and others are going around saying that because an a priori model of evolution uses a probabilistic model (which would be truly random since it is simply defined that way a priori) from our a posteriori observations (that is, seeing how evolution works in the real world) then the thing itself must necessarily be truly random.

That is simply wrong - it is a nonsense to pretend that it is in any way meaningful to say that out of two eggs the one that was eaten by a predator was eaten because of a random event. A predator is not a random event. It is not a coin flip. There is a severe disconnect here between appreciating the difference between how you model a highly complex system and how the highly complex system actually operates.

Mijo has gotten it correct at every turn, and the fact that you've missed the point is not his fault.

Uhhh... no. Unless you also think Poker is the same game as Roulette.

More power to you!

 

[cyborg]

cyborg-

Just because the Earth is a complex system doesn't mean that it is a complex deterministic machine.

But thus far you have argued along the lines of, "well if that twin dies then it's random." You have built a complete strawman version of natural selection along the lines of, "if all offspring with genetic profile X do not survive then those that do survive do so acausally," and have argued that location and such do not constitute a "sufficient" change in environment to satisfy you that it is not random. The whole point is that in a highly complex system a small change in location does in fact make a difference.

Say we have two completely equal entities but one of them is a bit closer to a predator and it gets eaten and the other doesn't - you want to say that is random. I say it is not because the players were differentiated by where they could be on the game board. In Go no stone is any better than any other stone - position is key.

Your mistake is that you are saying, "well, if we remove all this differentiating information about position and such and concentrate on the aggregate populations then we can only make probabilistic models therefore it is random." Uh yeah, that's right. That's why you have to put all that stuff you ignored back in to make the model more complete. When you do so you are removing the uncertainty you were using probabilities to model.

As such you are making a completely fallacious argument.

It is possible to build complex processes in a probabilistic manner.

It is in fact trivial - it requires no effort whatsoever.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijo, maybe it would be a good idea to have a signature stating your view*, that evolution is a stochastic process, and this can explain how humanity arose without any need for supernatural intervention.

That might save you repeating every ten pages that you are not a proponent of Intelligent design...


ETA
*this is obviously my reading of your posts, but seems a fairly accurate summary.

I thank you for your charitable interpretation of what I have written, jimbob, and for taking what I say at face-value. However, I think that no matter how often I state that I accept the fact of evolution by natural selection there are going to be people who take it as an article of faith that saying "evolution is probabilistic/random/stochastic" mean that you don't accept evolution by natural selection as a fact, just as many people on these forum insist that one must be a "religion apologist" (see:#1455 in this thread) if one criticizes them for holding the "opinion" that religion is not child abuse (see: Dawkins responds to Sloan Wilson and New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence for a more thorough discussion*).

*I admit that the original topic of discussion in those threads was not necessarily "religion is child abuse/a harmful evolutionary atavism" but I saw people making claims that it was inappropriate for people to criticize Dawkins for "speaking the truth about religion" and thought that I should demand evidence as they had demanded evidence form me when I had made claims with which they didn't agree.

 

[jimbob]

My point about the randomness or otherwise about natural selection, is that evolution works with a probabilistic natural selection.

Evolution also works with a deterministic selection, and is quicker at arriving at a predetermined goal than probabilistic selection, which is demonstrated with selective breeding.

 

[Meadmaker]

And yet it is a perfectly valid sequence for a fair coin.

Problematic no?

No.

Uhhh... no. This is an issue of a priori vs a posteriori - the problem is that you, mijo and others are going around saying that because an a priori model of evolution uses a probabilistic model (which would be truly random since it is simply defined that way a priori) from our a posteriori observations (that is, seeing how evolution works in the real world) then the thing itself must necessarily be truly random.

Just for the record, this part's ok. Yes. Our observations about how evolution works in the real world indicate that we cannot predict, exactly, future events without using probabilistic models. Therefore, it is truly random.

Oh, there might be some sort of underlying order, which, if known to exact, complete, detail would explain why that particular atom of uranium decayed, which caused a gamma ray to hit the cat, which caused cancer in the cat, which meant it died. Had it not died, the snake would have seen it while hunting, and slithered back several feet and a bit to the right. So, when the cat left, it was a few feet to the left of where it would otherwise have been, which meant it approached the nest from a different angle, and so it ate a different egg. I'm not saying that it is impossible that there is some underlying cause for that uranium to decay. On the other hand, not only do we not have the technology or resources to determine why that atom decayed, but the cause is inaccessible, even in principle. There is no way we could possibly say why it happened. In fact, most physicists have decide, without proof, that there is no cause.Therefore, I'm going to call it random. And if it is random, then I'm going to call all subsequent events that happened as a consequence of that event random as well. So, the snake eating that particular egg instead of its nestmate is a random event.

It really doesn't matter if it is "truly random", or simply unmeasurable, or even a consequence of pseudo-randomness in a random number generator. If I can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter.

A predator is not a random event. It is not a coin flip.

I'm going to flip a coin. If it comes up heads, I'm going to kill my cat.

Contemplate the consequences of this event from an evolutionary perspective for the birds at my bird feeder.

Uhhh... no. Unless you also think Poker is the same game as Roulette.

I don't recall him saying that.

 

[cyborg]

Just for the record, this part's ok. Yes. Our observations about how evolution works in the real world indicate that we cannot predict, exactly, future events without using probabilistic models. Therefore, it is truly random.

*Sigh*

No Meadmaker - your lack of knowledge about something does not make it random.

If I were to get a pack of standard playing cards and pick one you would tell me my card is random because you would be limited to guessing probabilistically what it is.

My card does not exist in a superposition however.

Your lack of knowledge is irrelevant to the nature of the card.

Go back and read what I said about predictability.

Oh, there might be some sort of underlying order, which, if known to exact, complete, detail would explain why that particular atom of uranium decayed, which caused a gamma ray to hit the cat, which caused cancer in the cat, which meant it died. Had it not died, the snake would have seen it while hunting, and slithered back several feet and a bit to the right. So, when the cat left, it was a few feet to the left of where it would otherwise have been, which meant it approached the nest from a different angle, and so it ate a different egg. I'm not saying that it is impossible that there is some underlying cause for that uranium to decay. On the other hand, not only do we not have the technology or resources to determine why that atom decayed, but the cause is inaccessible, even in principle. There is no way we could possibly say why it happened. In fact, most physicists have decide, without proof, that there is no cause.Therefore, I'm going to call it random. And if it is random, then I'm going to call all subsequent events that happened as a consequence of that event random as well. So, the snake eating that particular egg instead of its nestmate is a random event.

You of course do not understand the importance of what you are saying.

You are in the same trap as Mijo - when you start thinking of randomness in this way then everything must be random to you.

I don't happen to think that's helpful at all, but then that's your choice here.

So I say again you do not understand randomness.

It really doesn't matter if it is "truly random", or simply unmeasurable, or even a consequence of pseudo-randomness in a random number generator. If I can't tell the difference, it doesn't matter.

How very ego-centric of you.

I'm going to flip a coin. If it comes up heads, I'm going to kill my cat.

How very drole.

Contemplate the consequences of this event from an evolutionary perspective for the birds at my bird feeder.

Let's just watch it unfold shall we? I think that should be sufficient.

I don't recall him saying that.

Unfortunately it is what you and he are both saying. If you can find something random - anywhere - it's random. End of.

Everything is random to you - hell even provably entirely deterministic events are random to you. I hope that works out well as far as conveying information goes. I happen to find such semantic muddling unhelpful. I also predicted way back that exactly this would happen.

Where's my $1m?

 

[Oppressed]

I believe that by far the most likely probability is that the theory of evolution is correct, given the probability of minor errors in timing or some steps. The general outline though I believe is as true as gravity. There is a very small possibility that our existence and the apparent age of our perceivable universe is artificial, created by one or more beings with the power to do so.

Assuming that our estimate age of our perceivable universe is roughly correct and that it was not created out of nothingness a mere 10,000 years ago by some superpower, then the probability of the theory of evolution becomes even more probable.

Then there comes another question. Assuming evolution is correct, is it random or is it by design?

I believe it could be either.

If you study the laws of how our perceivable universe functions, that is what little we have glimpsed of these laws, you will find them to be quite sophisticated and complex. One way evolution can be happening through design is if the very laws of our existence were developed by design.

By this, I mean that by the laws of nature we exist by, it is 100% certain that life will develop, not just once, but many times. Of the life that develops, some percentage of it will achieve intelligence. Of intelligent life, some percentage of it will begin to develop our level of knowledge over the laws of our existence, heading towards the changing point of mastering molecular engineering and all that doing so implies. Of those budding technological societies, a few will survive mastery of molecular engineering and become a race of virtual immortals not as bound to physical form as we are.

If the underlying fundamental laws of how we exist were deliberately designed so that this development of intelligent life would develop, then the evolution that follows is by design. The very fact that such complex laws do exist that have given rise to our childlike race which is now on the verge of mastering molecular engineering gives support to the possibility these laws were made by design.

On the other hand, there is no supportable evidence that any supernatural power exists. I noticed that there is a 1 million dollar JREF challenge for proving anything supernatural. I like that. I’ve used a similar argument to people claiming to have proof of paranormal events or abilities, telling them that if they can prove it to me under scientific scrutiny then I would guarantee I would make them multimillionaires. Needless to say, nothing supernatural has been proven to exist yet.

In the lack of any evidence that something supernatural exists some possibilities that come to my mind are:

1. Nothing supernatural exists and our existence and the extremely complex rules that regulate our existence just somehow develop on its own.
2. Something supernatural created our existence and is no longer actively interfacing with us, at least on a level we can perceive.
3. Something supernatural exists but it has such total control over our existence combined with the desire for us to be unable to prove anything supernatural that we are unable to prove the supernatural exists even though it does.

 

[articulett]

And I have heard people say that the failure to recreate life in a small flask in an experiment running for a few weeks, shows that life couldn't have arisen without supernatural intervention within a timeframe of tens of millions of years in a planet sized experiment...

No amount of evidence will be enough for any of them to conclude evolution is a fact... They don't have the intelligence or science understanding just to understand the basics. DNA is conclusive proof. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739#post2199739

And even their lord Behe accepts common descent.

But all it takes is a primitive text, some mumbo jumbo, threats of hell, and promises of salvation and they'll readily believe in talking snakes, virgin births, invisible gods that kill their kid who is really them to atone for apple eating...
Arks holding all life forms from kangaroos to camels and then distributing around the earth... a garden of Eden where adults were poofed into language with fully formed language and memory I imagine, but not a clue as to the wrath of their invisible creator if they ate from the "tree of knowledge"-- All this, even though none of these people wrote any of this down--it was all written afterwards with all sorts of incoherence based on revelations-- The irony of woo is astounding... the ignorance profound...

 

[articulett]

I see that no-one here - not a single one of those arguing for evolution being random - is getting the point that there is acausal randomness and there is causal randomness that is a machine reaching a complexity limit of infinity.

But hey - you just keep on telling yourself that if you can model it with a probability distribution it's random and that you know that's right.

The creationists keep telling themselves that scientists are saying it's random...
And they sure do know they are right. The little voice in their head they call "god" told them so. And that little voice tells them they are foolish if they think it could happen by random chance--that he (the invisible guy) is responsible!

 

[articulett]

I see that you still fail to grasp that there is, as of yet, no way of distinguishing between what you call "acausal" randomness and what you call "causal" randomness and that, in absence of evidence that the universe (or parts thereof) is a machine, science usually errs on the side of parsimony. Therefore, your complex machine that comes up with sequences of head and tails deterministically is not preferable to the unpredictably of fluid dynamics producing the sequence randomly.

And you and your fellow randomites are failing to understand natural selection and how it multiplies successful mutations exponentially--not randomly.

Of course, there is no hope for you calling evolution anything but random, because you are a creationist and you need to believe that scientists think this all happened by chance. Only scientists who do not understand natural selection would use the vague descriptors you are to convey the nothingness you convey-- the same nothingness that Behe conveys and rttjc and rodney and even Von... you claims are indistinguishable from the above...particularly Behe. You talk in circles, fail to convey information, and insult those who would help you answer your question and understand the facts.

You are incapable of explaining how the order comes about via evolution. It's very easy to explain by having an understanding of natural selection. You don't. Good replicators copy their DNA in abundance-- the worst are weeded out at the get go. The rest of the DNA jockeys for frequency in whatever environment it's in through competition and mating of whatever organisms it builds.

 

[articulett]

Where's my $1m?

Hey, I said it first. I'll give you a fourth.