What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[steenkh]

The OP says Basically what I have been saying about how an random process with random inputs (e.g., natural selection working on random mutation) can have ordered results (e.g., adaptive optimization).

I have not yet read the link, but I wondered if anybody here have denied that natural selection working on random mutations can have ordered results?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I have not yet read the link, but I wondered if anybody here have denied that natural selection working on random mutations can have ordered results?

Strictly speaking, no. However, articulett and other who have argued similarly have denied that evolution is fundamentally random (i.e., it is not a stochastic process by nature) because of natural selection. It is interesting that yet another statistician has said that evolution is random in so far as it is defined by probabilities, but not in the sense that it is haphazard. He/she even goes as far to say that natural selection itself is "random", because its outcome for a given individual cannot be known in advance; it is only possible to make "certain" statements about the average behavior of groups of individuals.

 

[dwr54]

Aren't we making a simple thing difficult? Admittedly, like all "simple" things, they only become simple once they are explained to us [I should cite AC Doyle, or Sherlock Holmes here].

Dosen't Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, among many other books by other authors [SJ Gould, etc], provide ingeniously simple answers to the above question? No need for woo woo or over-elaboration here. This question has been answered a thousand times by people we can trust - no offence to the person who posed the ligitimate question, of course.

 

[articulett]

Aren't we making a simple thing difficult? Admittedly, like all "simple" things, they only become simple once they are explained to us [I should cite AC Doyle, or Sherlock Holmes here].

Dosen't Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, among many other books by other authors [SJ Gould, etc], provide ingeniously simple answers to the above question? No need for woo woo or over-elaboration here. This question has been answered a thousand times by people we can trust - no offence to the person who posed the ligitimate question, of course.

Yes, but the OP thinks Dawkins is wrong and that he is right or clear to someone other than himself; you can tell by how he asked the question that he had the answer he wanted which he's repeated ad nauseum ("there is no evidence that evolution is non-random") He's impervious... and the way he's defining random, he's not "wrong"-- just terribly muddled and misleading and seemingly clueless (like Behe) as to how the seeming appearance of design comes about ("natural selection" which Dawkins and others feel is the opposite of random or the "derandomizer or the answer to his OP)...

I'm pretty sure Mijo is a creationist... he argues exactly like Behe. Multiple people have dropped in to say as much and quoted Dawkins et. al. He's got a garbled definition, and Dawkins has explained it to many-- but some people feel like it makes sense to ignore how the order comes from natural selection by writing off the whole process of evolution as random (which creationists then liken to a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747). You can have a go with him, but they don't change. His question was insincere. His solution garbled. And he's got a supporter or two who sound as confused as he does. Stick with Dawkins, Talk Origins, etc.

 

[Meadmaker]

dwr54,

Here's what this thread is all about:

I'm pretty sure Mijo is a creationist

Articulett is wrong in this belief but she'll never admit it.

 

[articulett]

dwr54,

Here's what this thread is all about:




Articulett is wrong in this belief but she'll never admit it.

Said the guy who thinks he understands evolution. I'd admit it, if there was the slightest bit of evidence that he was a smidgen more honest than Behe... or if he would admit that natural selection is not random... or even describe it in a way that sounded coherent. Of course that won't happen. Just like you won't admit you're an apologist... you call Behe honest while calling scientists liars--

And I am far from alone in my opinion. Plus I do teach evolution to people. I have yet to hear you describe it coherently.

If it quacks like a duck...

Since I've never seen you write anything useful or coherent while having an amazingly high opinion of yourself that no one else seems to share, I think that's a sign to put you on ignore. This forum seems so much smarter since I eliminated mijo's garbled nothingness. I just like to warn the people who are actually trying to communicate or who thought that the OP was sincere. Sometimes a new person might wonder if the communication problem is them-- while the ones with the actual communication problems never even think it could be their density (see plumjam).

 

[mijopaalmc]

Aren't we making a simple thing difficult? Admittedly, like all "simple" things, they only become simple once they are explained to us [I should cite AC Doyle, or Sherlock Holmes here].

Dosen't Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker, among many other books by other authors [SJ Gould, etc], provide ingeniously simple answers to the above question? No need for woo woo or over-elaboration here. This question has been answered a thousand times by people we can trust - no offence to the person who posed the ligitimate question, of course.

I'm sorry, but had you bothered to read the thread instead of stupidly parroting articulett, you would have that there is a fundamental inconsistency is the way that Dawkins and the other sources that articulett mentions deal with the supposed non-randomness of evolution: they call it "non-random" and discuss it in terms of probability. This is self-contradictory; either evolution is "non-random" or it is based on probability. Furthermore, the observed phenomena that people claim make evolution non-random in no way require that evolution be non-random, as there are random processes that exhibit the exact same behavior.

I'm still waiting for someone to honestly address these points.

 

[Meadmaker]

Of course that won't happen. Just like you won't admit you're an apologist...

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

I might cause some confusion by standing up for people I disagree with. Because people assume that no one ever says something nice about "the other side", when I stand up for Behe, a lot of people assume I agree with Behe, and that causes some confusion. My tendency to stand up for those people has earned me the label "apologist", which label I do not object to. It's not perfectly accurate, but it's pretty close.

I make no apologies for my apologism. I think that people's beliefs should be presented accurately, and I think that whatever contempt we have for those beliefs should not be expressed as personal attacks on the believer. Specifically, go ahead and criticize Behe for believing what he does, but you may as well get it right when you talk about his beliefs, and there's no reason to assume he is lying about them. Similarly for everyone on this thread.

you call Behe honest while calling scientists liars--

I didn't call scientist liars, although it could be an honest mistake to think that I did. I did use the word "lie" in a sentence once, trying to make a point to you, but you didn't get it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm sorry, but had you bothered to read the thread instead of stupidly parroting articulett,

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm sorry, but had you bothered to read the thread instead of stupidly parroting articulett, you would have that there is a fundamental inconsistency is the way that Dawkins and the other sources that articulett mentions deal with the supposed non-randomness of evolution: they call it "non-random" and discuss it in terms of probability. This is self-contradictory; either evolution is "non-random" or it is based on probability. Furthermore, the observed phenomena that people claim make evolution non-random in no way require that evolution be non-random, as there are random processes that exhibit the exact same behavior.

I'm still waiting for someone to honestly address these points.

It seems to me that you've defined "honestly" as "agreeing with you", and everything else as "dishonest".

Just from a layman's perspective, using common sense and experience, it also seems fairly obvious that something can be both non-random and be described in terms of probability. Anything that isn't 100% is described in terms of probability... how does that equal "random" to you? And, please, try to address that honestly.

 

[articulett]

I have not yet read the link, but I wondered if anybody here have denied that natural selection working on random mutations can have ordered results?

No, in fact, Myriad's explanation was beautiful and is in the running for the language award http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92007

But it's not the answer that Mijo wants, because Mijo, like Behe, must conclude that evolution is "random". Do make sure that you read Myriad's very eloquent explanation though. It will clear your head of any leftover mijo muddle. You can imagine why mijo didn't like this explanation... I guess it sounds like that "contradictory" and "confusing" Dawkins.

 

[JoeEllison]

No, in fact, Myriad's explanation was beautiful and is in the running for the language award http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92007

But it's not the answer that Mijo wants, because Mijo, like Behe, must conclude that evolution is "random". Do make sure that you read Myriad's very eloquent explanation though. It will clear your head of any leftover mijo muddle. You can imagine why mijo didn't like this explanation... I guess it sounds like that "contradictory" and "confusing" Dawkins.

Cripes... that IS a good explanation. It also saves me bothering posting an almost identical explanation. I doubt I could do as well as Myriad, and it won't make a difference to people who are only pretending to be interested in understanding evolution.

 

[articulett]

It seems to me that you've defined "honestly" as "agreeing with you", and everything else as "dishonest".

Just from a layman's perspective, using common sense and experience, it also seems fairly obvious that something can be both non-random and be described in terms of probability. Anything that isn't 100% is described in terms of probability... how does that equal "random" to you? And, please, try to address that honestly.

Egads... now you've started the thread from scratch again. And it will go as long as he can get an audience for his self-aggrandizing nothingness. On the other hand, this thread is so much more intelligent now that I have him and Meadmaker on ignore, and I only am subject to their blather when someone sees fit to quote them (which people seem to tire of quickly). It's nice to see that Mijo still thinks so fondly of me Especially since he seems to feel similar towards Dawkins.

(They are always winning some imaginary battle in their heads while other people are having a discussion or asking sincere questions or conversing. -- who knows what the point is? The OP has been answered a hundred times, but he keeps looking for the answer he wants.)

 

[JoeEllison]

Egads... now you've started the thread from scratch again. And it will go as long as he can get an audience for his self-aggrandizing nothingness. On the other hand, this thread is so much more intelligent now that I have him and Meadmaker on ignore, and I only am subject to their blather when someone sees fit to quote them (which people seem to tire of quickly). It's nice to see that Mijo still thinks so fondly of me Especially since he seems to feel similar towards Dawkins.

(They are always winning some imaginary battle in their heads while other people are having a discussion or asking sincere questions or conversing. -- who knows what the point is? The OP has been answered a hundred times, but he keeps looking for the answer he wants.)

Yeah, but you keep posting too... I guess someone has to stick around and make sure that new folks don't stumble across a thread like this, and think that Mijo and Mead have a valid point, or are interested in having an honest discussion of the issue.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It seems to me that you've defined "honestly" as "agreeing with you", and everything else as "dishonest".

Just from a layman's perspective, using common sense and experience, it also seems fairly obvious that something can be both non-random and be described in terms of probability. Anything that isn't 100% is described in terms of probability... how does that equal "random" to you? And, please, try to address that honestly.

Your question get a big "So What?".

I honestly don't understand why people make such a big deal out of the class of random processes being bigger than they though it was. In fact, the fact that "[a]nything that isn't 100% is described in terms of probability" is the entire point. Natural selection is not 100% efficient at both weeding out detrimental mutations and preserving beneficial mutation in a single generation; therefore, some organisms possessing detrimental mutations survive and some organisms possessing beneficial mutations perish, but on average with a lesser and greater frequency of reproductively viable offspring in the next generation, respectively.

Would you care to describe how this behavior makes evolution "non-random"?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Alternatively, Joe, you could explain what is wring with this description of evolution buy natural selection, other than you don't like the word it use.

From Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution:

[QUOTE="Bell (1997)]In every generation better-adapted individuals will bee more likely to survive and reproduce. This is only a tendency, however, not a deterministic rule. A snail living in an English hedgerow is less likely to be eaten of its shell is striped rather than plain.But it is not very likely to survive in any case; it may be eaten by a shrew, or die of heatstroke or starvation; it may even be eaten by a bird after all. Selection is a process of sampling. The variation of characters among individuals ensures that the sample that reproduces is a biased sample of the population as a whole, but its composition cannot be precisely specified in advance. But there is nobody responsible for selecting snail at the bottom of hedgerow, and no individuals, no matter how well-endowed has any guarantee of success, only a greater or lesser chance. Richard Lewontin once prefaced a lecture on this topic withva quote from Ecclesiastes: the race is not alway to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but time and chance happen to both.

The nature of evolution as sampling implies that evolution is a stochastic process that is subject to sampling error. The composition of a population at any point in time will be determined by three factors. One is historical, the composition of the generation from which it descends. The second is selection, which tends to increase some kinds of individual and decrease others. The third is chance. The actual composition of the population will inevitably differ from what we expected based on descent and selection, because the life of each individual is a historically unique succession of events who eventual outcome is influenced by a multitude of factors. The next generation is formed in a stochastic, or probabilistic, fashion from the success and failure of many such lives. We may be able to predict its average properties with some assurance, but its composition will fluctuate to a greater or leasser extent in ways we cannot predict or account for.[/QUOTE]

 

[Meadmaker]

Anything that isn't 100% is described in terms of probability... how does that equal "random" to you? And, please, try to address that honestly.

If it's described in terms of probability, it's random. That's the definition my professors used. If it's good enough for graduate school, it's good enough for me.

I won't insist that that is the only definition of random that can be used, but it is a perfectly good definition.

 

[steenkh]

If it's described in terms of probability, it's random. That's the definition my professors used. If it's good enough for graduate school, it's good enough for me.

I won't insist that that is the only definition of random that can be used, but it is a perfectly good definition.

That definition is useless against common usage, because according to your professor a pair of loaded dice are still random, and you could get into a great deal of trouble if you wanted to defend that view in a casino!

 

[Meadmaker]

That definition is useless against common usage, because according to your professor a pair of loaded dice are still random, and you could get into a great deal of trouble if you wanted to defend that view in a casino!

My guess is that probability professors don't spend a lot of time in casinos.

You are absolutely right that there is a good time to use that definition and a bad time to use that definition. The common definition of random is absolutely useless when describing numerical methods applied to the study of evolution.

And "probabilistic" or "stochastic" are usually better choices, not because they are more specific, but because they scare away people who might not understand what you are saying in the first place.

 

[mijopaalmc]

That definition is useless against common usage, because according to your professor a pair of loaded dice are still random, and you could get into a great deal of trouble if you wanted to defend that view in a casino!

And this seems to be the problem in the understanding of those who argue that evolution is by definition non-random: their understanding of probability theory seem to be stuck in the 17th and 18th centuries, when probability theorists were in part interested in analyzing games of chance. Because the implicit assumption of games of chance is that all outcomes are equally likely to happen, there was little need for a conceptual distinction between "fairness" (i.e., equiprobable outcomes) and "randomness" (i.e., basis in probability). The emphasis on equiprobability still seems to create a great deal of trouble to day because most people only learn about randomness and probability by studying casino games.*

*This is only half of the story. Modern probability theory also has roots in the development of actuarial science from the Renaissance onward. In actuarial science, most of the variables studied are not uniformly distributed and therefore the concept of "fairness" loses most of its emphasis. However, since most people learn about probability by studying games of chance, "fairness" is still often confused with "randomness".