What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope, you got that wrong. It is the selection process that is the deterministic process, not the mutations.

Huh? I said:

There you have it, my friends. If you think that mutations are simply "random errors," then you are justified in asserting that evolution is not a stochastic process. If, on the other hand, you maintain that mutation is such an integral part of the process that dismissing it as trivial "random error" is unjustified, then evolution is a stochastic process.

But most of them understand that a die rolled on a flat hard surface doesn't come up as a edge, or a corner. And they still call that random. They call mutation random, even though the outcomes of that is limited by the previous material. If you look through random processes, even those that laymen call random, the vast majority of them do have limited outcome. The problem may partly be misunderstanding the term, but a large part of it seems to be a block when it comes to this particular process.

Let me repeat the definition from the Penguin Dictionary of Mathematics:

stochastic process. A random process. Common usage excludes essentially deterministic processes, which are subject only to random errors.

The question is: Are mutations and any other random factors in the process of evolution "only random errors"? If so, then we can call evolution deterministic. If not, then we should call it stochastic.

Does anyone dare to answer the bold question?

Sorry, I wasn't paying any attention to it after the first few pages since the whole thing was obviously a semantic game.

For all intents and purposes, yes.

~~ Paul

 

[steenkh]

Huh? I said:

There you have it, my friends. If you think that mutations are simply "random errors," then you are justified in asserting that evolution is not a stochastic process. If, on the other hand, you maintain that mutation is such an integral part of the process that dismissing it as trivial "random error" is unjustified, then evolution is a stochastic process.

Maybe I have misunderstood you. I am not sure what you mean by "random errors".

The question is: Are mutations and any other random factors in the process of evolution "only random errors"? If so, then we can call evolution deterministic. If not, then we should call it stochastic.

I do not think that mutations are a factor of "errors", but rather a source for changes. Without these changes there would be no evolution. But the selection process is using these changes in a way that enhances - or rather never decreases survivability of the species. That is why I do not see evolution as random. It is possible that the term "stochastic" fits evolution well because it is more technical, and it implies (in my mind at least) an emphasis that we cannot predict the precise route evolution will take towards greater survivability.

 

[articulett]

So Paul... how do you answer the question in the OP... Mijo wants to know why Dawkins would say natural selection is "the opposite of random"-- or, at least, he claimed he wanted to know that. Would you agree or disagree with Mijo's conclusion that "there is no evidence that evolution is non random"? I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying on this topic. (And, didn't you say you would consider a loaded die "random"? wouldn't the fact that it's biased mean that it was no longer random?-- In Vegas it would.)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Except it is another in a long line of links that simply don't answer my question.

Yes, the sums of a number of dice throws are non-uniformly distributed and dependent on the number of dice thrown, but that does explain why they are non-random, especially since models using several dice and cards are used to demonstrate quintessential random behavior to 12-18 year olds.

Wait a second. You keep speaking of sums of die rolls. That example was of averages, not sums. Did you really mean to ask if the average of a series of die rolls is random? Those are two very different things.

 

[sphenisc]

Wait a second. You keep speaking of sums of die rolls. That example was of averages, not sums. Did you really mean to ask if the average of a series of die rolls is random? Those are two very different things.

How long did you spend examining BlackKat's link? Did you read the third paragraph?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So Paul... how do you answer the question in the OP... Mijo wants to know why Dawkins would say natural selection is "the opposite of random"-- or, at least, he claimed he wanted to know that. Would you agree or disagree with Mijo's conclusion that "there is no evidence that evolution is non random"? I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying on this topic. (And, didn't you say you would consider a loaded die "random"? wouldn't the fact that it's biased mean that it was no longer random?-- In Vegas it would.)

I'm not answering for Paul but only for myself.

I think Dawkins is wrong to say that natural selection is the opposite of random. It isn't, properly speaking the opposite. I'm not really sure what the opposite of random would be aside from "completely determined".

I think Dawkins was just trying to make a point, though.

What natural selection is is a process to limit the possibilities created through "mutation" (as a stand in for all process that increase variability). That is not the "opposite of random" but it is how we use the word "non-random".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

How long did you spend examining BlackKat's link? Did you read the third paragraph?

I only looked at the generator, so not long at all.

But logically, summation is simply the addition of numbers. Depending on how one looks at it, that may be a completely determined process or a completely random process if the numbers have not been generated yet. That is not the same thing as averaging numbers.

 

[sphenisc]

I only looked at the generator, so not long at all.

But logically, summation is simply the addition of numbers. Depending on how one looks at it, that may be a completely determined process or a completely random process if the numbers have not been generated yet. That is not the same thing as averaging numbers.

I can agree with each individual sentence, however none of it accounts for your statement:

You keep speaking of sums of die rolls. That example was of averages, not sums.

mijo was discussing BlackKat's link - which clearly relates to summation.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It plots a histogram of the number of die rolls that are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In other words, it shows us the average times that those rolls emerge.

When Mijo originally asked his question he asked about a sumation of die rolls. One way to interpret this is: I get a four on the first roll. Then I get a six on the next roll. Then I get a three on the next roll. The sum is 13. That is also a summation of die rolls.

That histogram shows the average number of times a five shows up, or summing up the number of fives and fours, etc. that you might see with several rolls.

The phrase "summation of die rolls" is a very ambiguous statement.

On average you will tend to see a fairly uniform scattering of numbers, but one can never predict which number will predominate especially with small numbers of rolls.

I originally answered with several possibilites (in my post way up above) because I had no idea what he meant by "summation of die rolls". I still don't know for sure.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Maybe I have misunderstood you. I am not sure what you mean by "random errors".

If a process is deterministic except for random errors, then it is still called deterministic. The classic example is a computer. It suffers from random memory errors, but it certainly wouldn't be called a stochastic process. However, if a random feature is part and parcel of the process, then the process is stochastic. For example, purposely flipping coins to determine where to eat dinner is a stochastic process.

The question is: Does evolution fit the former or latter scenario?

I do not think that mutations are a factor of "errors", but rather a source for changes. Without these changes there would be no evolution.

This is a good argument that evolution is a stochastic process: The randomness of mutations is an integral part of the process, not simply a source of occasional errors.

So Paul... how do you answer the question in the OP... Mijo wants to know why Dawkins would say natural selection is "the opposite of random"-- or, at least, he claimed he wanted to know that. Would you agree or disagree with Mijo's conclusion that "there is no evidence that evolution is non random"? I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying on this topic. (And, didn't you say you would consider a loaded die "random"? wouldn't the fact that it's biased mean that it was no longer random?-- In Vegas it would.)

Natural selection is nonrandom with respect to the environment, so I think Dawkins is okay saying that. However, I think it's fair to call evolution as a whole a stochastic process. This does not mean that the glib summary "evolution is random" is doing anyone any favors, because people interpret that to mean that evolution is entirely and completely random.

~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

It plots a histogram of the number of die rolls that are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In other words, it shows us the average times that those rolls emerge.

When Mijo originally asked his question he asked about a sumation of die rolls. One way to interpret this is: I get a four on the first roll. Then I get a six on the next roll. Then I get a three on the next roll. The sum is 13. That is also a summation of die rolls.

That histogram shows the average number of times a five shows up, or summing up the number of fives and fours, etc. that you might see with several rolls.

The phrase "summation of die rolls" is a very ambiguous statement.

On average you will tend to see a fairly uniform scattering of numbers, but one can never predict which number will predominate especially with small numbers of rolls.

I originally answered with several possibilites (in my post way up above) because I had no idea what he meant by "summation of die rolls". I still don't know for sure.

Does that make more sense?

It makes sense. I think it's rather obtuse to interpret it other than in the manner which seems obvious to me; but then I would, wouldn't I.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think you've already agreed that there are different definitions of 'random' and that your OP was in regard to the technical definition. I can also understand your complaint about technical literature using the term inappropriately, but why would you expect the popular literature to use anything other than a 'colloquial' definition? If it uses the term to mean something like "patternlessness/completely unpredictable" then it can use "non-random" to include things which are described by probabilities.

Definitions are an area where ad populem is not a fallacy, the majority is always right and Humpty Dumpty bows to the crowd. In a technical setting it's sensible to use the agreed technical definition, in casual conversation not so much.

And if I wanted to get really picky then I'd point out that a process is neither an "event"¹or a "situation"², so a random process makes no sense, (or a non-random one come to that).



1 a set of outcomes (a subset of the sample space) to which a probability is assigned. Wikipedia
2 Position or status with regard to conditions and circumstances. Free Online Dictionary

The problem is not that I don't understand that "random" can mean different things in different contexts.

The problem is that, even when presented evidence that scientists have been assuming that evolution is a stochastic (random) process for the purpose of modeling it, people still refuse to entertain the slightest notion that evolution itself could be random.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

People, as in whom?

Evolution is random. It has random elements central to it, so it is, technically speaking, random. I thought that was established long ago. I thought the issue was over the use of the term non-random, which does not mean "the opposite of random".

Natural selection fits the way that we use the term non-random. So, evolution has central to it elements that are random and elements that are non-random. To discuss it properly we should acknowledge both.

 

[articulett]

I'm not answering for Paul but only for myself.

I think Dawkins is wrong to say that natural selection is the opposite of random. It isn't, properly speaking the opposite. I'm not really sure what the opposite of random would be aside from "completely determined".

I think Dawkins was just trying to make a point, though.

What natural selection is is a process to limit the possibilities created through "mutation" (as a stand in for all process that increase variability). That is not the "opposite of random" but it is how we use the word "non-random".

I agree... and I said early on, that such descriptions evolved in direct response to creationist obfuscation (e.g. "the tornado in a junkyard" analogy). Dawkins is correct in that natural selection is entirely determined by the best replicators in the previous generation.

Random (by itself) is a pretty useless word-- scientists tend to speak in terms of randomness in respect to something or degrees of randomness-- "random" by itself is associated with unpredictable singular events. It's an ambiguous term and an ambiguous question in the OP-- and it encourages the same errors in thinking promoted by Behe and other "intelligent design proponents". Moreover, processes are not considered "random" themselves though they contain randomness.

 

[articulett]

I'll give each of you 15 quatloos to let this thread die.

If I stop contributing, can I have one of those quatloos? (What's a quatloo?) (And are we talking cyber quatloos or real quatloos?)

 

[steenkh]

It would be a pity to let a long thread like this one just die, so perhaps I could try a derail:

Dawkins is correct in that natural selection is entirely determined by the best replicators in the previous generation.

The idea about effective replicators has often been mentioned, but I cannot make that fit to the reality that I know: If this was the case, why do so many species replicate so slowly? Many species, like elephants, only have few young in their entire lives, and yet they survive. They should not be considered effective replicators in any sense: there are comparatively few of them compared to, say bacteria, they multiply much slower than bacteria, and seen globally, they have a much lower collective biomass than bacteria.

It seems to me that "effective replicator" is not the right definition for success. I am thinking more along the lines of "effective survivor".

Can anyone point out what I am misunderstanding here?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't think you're missing anything.

I just don't think we have a single English word that conveys the correct information in a concise slogan.

You need survival and replication both.

For instance, one easy (but imprecise) way of summing it -- he (or she) who leaves behind the most babies wins. But, as I am sure to be corrected, it isn't he (or she) who leaves behind the most babies, but he or she whose babies leave behind the most babies.

Longevity isn't important unless it helps you leave behind more babies. And leaving behind babies doesn't matter if they don't have babies.

As to the elephant example, species who invest heavily in their young (and whose young generally live to adulthood) have many fewer babies than those whose young often die early. You need lots of babies if gulls swipe you up in droves during your mad rush to the sea and few if you have no real predators.

Letting this thread die would be the compassionate move.

You could start a new thread. Oooh, look, more babies........

 

[jimbob]

How about: Not the most effective replicators; any method of replicating where the average number reproducing offspring per parent is not less than one?

Elephants do not compete with preying mantises.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What if they play backgammon together?

 

[steenkh]

How about: Not the most effective replicators; any method of replicating where the average number reproducing offspring per parent is not less than one?

Nice combination of replication and survival.

OK, I am done with the derail. Thanks for the replies. I am now also prepared to let the thread rest in peace.