What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[JoeEllison]

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.

Your professors were idiots, or you misunderstood them. Either way, you're pretty obviously wrong.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Your professors were idiots, or you misunderstood them. Either way, you're pretty obviously wrong.

It's nice to see that little things like evidence from experts don't stop you from blindly pontificating.

 

[Meadmaker]

Your professors were idiots, or you misunderstood them. Either way, you're pretty obviously wrong.

I must admit that I find comments like this one very, very, weird.

Oh, well. They may have been idiots, but they are well regarded idiots, as evidenced by their reputation in academia, and if I misunderstood them, I managed to get an A in the class despite my lack of comprehension.

The really weird thing is that these idiots keep writing textbooks that all say the same thing.

 

[JoeEllison]

I must admit that I find comments like this one very, very, weird.

Oh, well. They may have been idiots, but they are well regarded idiots, as evidenced by their reputation in academia, and if I misunderstood them, I managed to get an A in the class despite my lack of comprehension.

The really weird thing is that these idiots keep writing textbooks that all say the same thing.

So, it is impossible that you misunderstood them?

Interesting, how this shows your mindset much more clearly than any straight-on question would have. Very, very interesting.

 

[JoeEllison]

It's nice to see that little things like evidence from experts don't stop you from blindly pontificating.

It is nice to see that you suffer from the same blind spot as your friend.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It is nice to see that you suffer from the same blind spot as your friend.

Perhaps you would like to provide an explanation of why you think that you know more than every probability theorist, Meadmaker's professors included.

 

[jimbob]

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....

Articulett, how would you explain the examples I posted about natural selection, giving real numbers without invoking probabilities?

I prefer talking about traits, because if the selection pressures are for smaller individuals (e.g. on an island with a reduced population) individuals with this trait have the advantage, and it it doesn't matter what gene is different, as long as the end result is a smaller organism.

In this case about half the population of offspring would have a smaller mature size than their parents, and thus the selective advantages work for a larger number than ifo one is talking about a single mutation.

In the case of a single advantageous mutation arising initially in one individual; the best (only) way of assessing how likely this mutation is to spread through the population is to perform a probabilistic analysis. It would be more advanced than my simple versions, but it needen't be by much.

Articulett,

In a stable population, a single advantageous mutation provides a 10% selective advantage, and arises in a single (asexually reproducing) organism.

The average brood size for this type of organism is 10.

1) At the birth of this organism, what is the probability of the mutation spreading through the population?

2) The organism makes it through to breed,

a) What is the probability of the mutation spreading now?

b) What is the probaility of the mutation remaining for 5 generations?

3) The mutation is now in 1% of a large popluation, now what is likely to happen?

I think these are usefull types of questions, and ones that can be only answered probabilistically, how would you answer such questions?

You have said that my question was dishoest because I was making a point.

 

[cyborg]

Sigh. I am going to have to point out the counter-intuitive nature of infinities again?

Jimbob - yet again I must ask: do you get the difference between using probabilities to model a system where the probabilities stand in effectively for a set of complexly interacting variables?

Consider the evolutionary models below:

Model A will be much like Ev - we will have a pool of creatures with a target genome. Mutations to the target pool occur at some rate and distributed with probabilities. Survival is dictated by how well the organisms score against the target genome.

Model B will extend Ev - we now introduce the concept of a target functionality. Instead of being scored against a genome we score against the ability for a given organism to act like the functional target. We will now have a notion of how the genotype effects phenotypes.

Model C extends model B to introduce the notion of competition. Instead of selecting based on a simple score we now provide a physical environment for our phenotypes to interact in. We have a more 'natural' sense of survival in this instance - now having to exist in a physical space organisms will have to contend with the thing you had a problem with earlier. Essentially being, "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Now we could model some of the new things we will see occur in model C in models A and B using probabilities to represent the idea of there being "bad luck" in one's positioning.

Now, as we extend model C with new aspects that make the simulation more akin to what we see in the real world clearly we are increasing the complexity of the model. Now do you see why this increase in complexity would lead to the appearance of it being random? It's because the more variables you have - the richer your model - the more difficult it is to predict the behaviour of the model even if it is deterministic.

If you think it is always easy to predict how a deterministic model will behave then I would have to ask why you would think that would be so. If you get that the difficulty as to how to predict its behaviour increases with the number of variables in the model and how aperiodic it is then it is only a short step to see that the more one increases the number of variables the more akin it is to seeming to be random in nature. (And in the infinite case it is mathematically equivalent).

So, is the randomness in the model a reflection of how things are actually occurring or just the sum total of our ignorance about the variables involved in giving rise to it?

Can you see why for a sufficiently rich model probabilities would not have to be involved?

 

[Meadmaker]

So, it is impossible that you misunderstood them?

Interesting, how this shows your mindset much more clearly than any straight-on question would have. Very, very interesting.

Oh, no. I was merely noting that the successful completion of the courses with an A was evidence that my use of that definition was not because of lack of comprehension, and that the repute of my professors suggests that bad instruction was not to blame.

In your post, however, you noted only two possibilities, that my professors were idiots, or that I failed to comprehend. Were we to explore the topic further, I suspect we could come up with one or more alternatives that are outside the set that you presented.

And feel free to present anything you think might enlighten me or other readers about my errors. Perhaps your professors of probability theory used a different definition?

 

[Meadmaker]

Sigh. I am going to have to point out the counter-intuitive nature of infinities again?

Or you could just answer the question.

 

[cyborg]

I did.

*Sigh* Do you understand Meadmaker or not?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Articulett, how would you explain the examples I posted about natural selection, giving real numbers without invoking probabilities?\

You have said that my question was dishoest because I was making a point.

jimbob, I think you should just up trying to get an answer from aritculett; it is clear that she just ignores evidence that contradicts her preconceived notions of what reality is.

I find it interesting that none of the "non-randomites" who don't have me on ignore have bothered to respond to my citations of evolutionary biologists saying that evolution is a stochastic process (quotes in spoilers to conserve post space).


Stochastic Processes and the Distribution of Gene Frequencies under Natural Selection

Evolution is a stochastic process of change in gene frequencies in natural populations. Since the populations making up a species consist of many individuals and since evolution extends over enormous periods of time, laws which govern the process of change are inevitably "statistical". In this sense the genetical theory of evolution, as R. A. Fisher (1922) suggests, is comparable to the theory of gases. This analogy can be pushed further: Instead of considering populations as aggregates of genes, we find it more convenient to consider populations as aggregates of gene frequencies (or ratios). This is similar to the situation in physics where the specification of theory population of velocities is more useful than that of the population of particles (Fisher, 1953). As far as I know, this fruitful idea was first incorporated into the theory of population genetics by Fisher in his 1922 paper, which lead to a later elaboration (Fisher 1930a).

Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution

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 with a 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 lesser extent in ways we cannot predict or account for.

 

[jimbob]

But even though it is a model.

A mutation arises in a particular moth where bird predation and bat predation is important.

This mutation makes the moth better camoflagued to visibal light.

This doesn't affect detection by echolocation, and the said moth is eaten by a bat before reproducing.

From the POV of this traits reproduction, the bat predation is a random factor that stopped the beneficial mutation spreading.

How has this trait affected by bat-predation except unpredictibly?

If the trait alters the survival chances, it will alter minor factors of the environment, and via the butterfly effect the weather.

A random mutation affects the envioronment enough for random events to be important, and that a determiniostic model, even with perfect knowledge of initial conditions. will not be correct in the long term. In chaotic systems, multiple simyulations with highly similar initial conditions provide an idea of the "simulation environment" the "climate" as opposed to the "weather".

Identical conditions, produce identical outcomes in deterministic* systems, even if they are chaotic.

And yes I do accept that there are systems with complex feedback loops that are deterministic; but which can be modelled by probabilities. However I don't think natural selection is one of these. (It depends on whether quantum effects are truly random).

A probabilistic (or stochastic) treatment works and I would argue it also reflects reality.

ETA: in response to Cyborg's post 2488

 

[Meadmaker]

I did.

*Sigh* Do you understand Meadmaker or not?

Sorry, I was going to edit my response, but got interrupted.

I didn't mean to imply that your explanation was incorrect, or to imply that the topic you were addressing was uninteresting.

Yes, you are correct, and many people would be interested in exploring that topic. However, it doesn't really matter whether it is "truly" random, or whether the apparent randomness is due to inability to model all the variables. Regardless of which represents the true underlying reality of the situation, the answer to jimbob's questions are the same.

In order to answer jimbob's questions, you must use probabilities. To put it differently, when it comes to our ability to model evolutionary processes, randomness is an essential tool.

One could then get into a meaningless argument about whether or not that means evolution "is random" or not, but such an argument is so meaningless that it could go of for 62 pages and corrupt multiple threads before that argument died away.

My point is that if, based on the fact that probabilities must be used when modelling evolution, one calls it "random", one cannot draw any conclusions about the person's religious beliefs, or comprehension of scientific principles. The choice of terms is highly situational and reflects a perspective, not a truth.

 

[articulett]

It is nice to see that you suffer from the same blind spot as your friend.

Watch cyborg run them through the hoops... in my head I envision mijo and meadmaker as blustery old guys (like Behe) and Jimbob as a young over confident guy who just doesn't get it-- (he's less muddled then the others, but still missing eloquence and clarity while trying to make a case for evolution being "random", because it's based on "probabilities". ) In my assessment, Mijo is Behe, but not as smart, and Meadmaker is some weird apologist who is convinced that he understands evolution and can explain it to people despite an amazing lack of evidence on the topic. They don't seem to get or be able to explain natural selection--and yet they are so certain they do-- AND that they are clearer than Dawkins, Talk Origins, Berkeley, the NCSE, and peer reviewed papers (though they'll occasionally trot out an old paper which they assert is saying what they are saying though it clearly is not.) See if you can figure out what their goal is? It certainly isn't about answering the OP-- it's all about defining evolution very similarly to the way Behe does from what I can tell. (Behe is an obfuscating "intelligent design" proponent who also sums up evolution as "random", missing the most important part of it...imagine someone using tortured definitions to describe poker as random--such that it is indistinguishable from roulette --and you will see what they are doing... it's not totally "wrong"-- it's just misleading and stupefying and associated with dishonesty; plus describing all the random parts of Poker misses the most interesting parts of the game. Behe singlehandly has managed to make thousands across the country sound like mijo and meadmaker-- sure they understand something that they so clearly don't.) It's a simple concept-- they bumble it every time.

Jim Bob's nice and less wrong, but just muddled and impenetrable. Even uneducated people can understand evolution when Dawkins and other "good explainers" discuss it. But no-one understands the Behe-esque--and they can't change, because they are convinced they are saying something useful and valuable, I guess.

Enjoy the show.

 

[JoeEllison]

Enjoy the show.

It is all about the show for me. Note, for instance, how similar their "everything in the universe is random" position is to the "atheism/science is just another unfounded, faith-based belief system". It is all the same sort of thing with all of "those people", isn't it?

Watching the patterns emerge is more interesting than any pseudo-logic they might come up with.

 

[cyborg]

From the POV of this traits reproduction, the bat predation is a random factor that stopped the beneficial mutation spreading.

No - it's non-deterministic with respect to the mutation. To say it is random - as I have been trying to get across - is a stronger claim that cannot be supported.

As far as the player's in the game are concerned this is a deterministic problem with respect to the environment - i.e. the bats have to deal with the fact they are being preyed upon. It is this deterministic relationship that is important if you are modelling it. If not you can compensate by simply encoding it as a 'disaster' probability for the population.

Think of it like differentiation - I could differentiate some complex polynomial with respect to y and get a chaotic behaviour or differentiate it with respect to x and get a more simplistic behaviour. What we are doing here is teasing out the correlations then promoting them to causations.

Predation is a simple concept is it not? You get caught, you get eaten - pretty deterministic. Yet we can see how in nature it can lead to quite chaotic systems - but nonetheless we can tease out this complexity into a more deterministic model if we wish and explore deeper facets of the effects of evolution in life-like systems.

Or we can ignore it if we don't need that sort of fine grained detail. But we should NOT be making strong claims based on ignorance.

Identical conditions, produce identical outcomes in deterministic* systems, even if they are chaotic.

Unfortunately we lack the ability to roll back time. Therefore we will be forever unable to decide on things like whether quantum mechanics acts in a truly random manner or as the result of massive entanglement - we cannot step outside the system to confirm it so we are stuck with being entangled either way.

And yes I do accept that there are systems with complex feedback loops that are deterministic; but which can be modelled by probabilities. However I don't think natural selection is one of these. (It depends on whether quantum effects are truly random).

I really don't think it does - for the reasons I have already outlined. It seems very important because it seems that random and non-random are fundamentally and diametrically opposed concepts. They are not really but we have to assume as much in order to get useful work done.

As long as you keep in mind that they are, and always will be, useful lies you will remain flexible. As such I have been arguing for the usefulness of my lies.

A probabilistic (or stochastic) treatment works and I would argue it also reflects reality.

Well duh - of course it reflects reality - if it did not then we would not use the model would we?

Have I at any point said otherwise? No I have not. I have merely been pointing out - and in fact I pointed this out very early - the problem with, what is essentially, the strong claim of randomness and relating that to how it might be best to think of evolution. Hence why I introduced the most basic terminology I could that would unambiguously separate the important concepts without in fact making a strong claim either way vis-a-vis randomness.

Hence it is not sufficient to simply talk about random and non-random: you must talk about it WITH RESPECT TO some variable - just like differentiation.

 

[mijopaalmc]

It is all about the show for me. Note, for instance, how similar their "everything in the universe is random" position is to the "atheism/science is just another unfounded, faith-based belief system". It is all the same sort of thing with all of "those people", isn't it?

Watching the patterns emerge is more interesting than any pseudo-logic they might come up with.

And that's just the problem with the interpretation that you and articulett have given our arguments: you only see the similarities between what we have been saying and what creationists and IDists say. In fact, articulett has repeatedly ignored that each of the "randomites" has explicitly said that their description of evolution as random is not an attack on the theory itself, because evolution can happen even if it is a random process.

Instead of accusing us of using meaningless terms and claiming some sort of radical epistemic relativism, why don't you actually read what we write?

 

[Meadmaker]

It is all about the show for me. Note, for instance, how similar their "everything in the universe is random" position is to the "atheism/science is just another unfounded, faith-based belief system". It is all the same sort of thing with all of "those people", isn't it?

Watching the patterns emerge is more interesting than any pseudo-logic they might come up with.

Hey, Joe. I've got a great idea about how to put on an even better show. I'll make you the sort of offer I made articulett.

Ask me a question, and I'll answer it. Keep doing that until you get bored.

Articulett got bored after three questions. It's odd, though, because she didn't get bored of writing lengthy monologues that were mostly long strings of personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims about other posters. She got bored with actual discussion, but not her own voice.

Or I could ask you questions instead. Or, my real favorite, you could ask me one, then I could ask you one. I didn't even bother offering that to articulett. I knew she wouldn't answer questions. I was surprised how quickly she gave up asking them, but I knew that there was no point in trying to get her to answer. Answering just wasn't part of her pattern.


It's a debate format I stumbled on many years ago that was well suited to forum discussions. I was the voice of reason in a JFK conspiracy thread. The CT crowd loved going on and on and on about this unsolved thing or that unsolved thing proved that JFK was killed by the mafia working with the CIA and the KGB, but when someone pinned them down, they stammered a lot more. Even more, when they were forced to ask questions one at a time, it became clear how easy it was to defeat the arguments. The only thing that kept the conspiracy theory going was a shotgun style approach that moved on before any one question was actually answered.

For what it's worth, I suspect it would work great in the evolution/creation debates so common on forums. Like the CT debates, the only thing that keeps the creationists from looking totally foolish even to each other is that they move on so quickly before being exposed.

So how about it, Joe? It would be a great show, I'm sure. Your insightful mind could find just the right questions to expose just how foolish I really was. Any newcomers to the thread wouldn't need to read 62 pages to make me look like an ass. Are you up for it?

 

[articulett]

So, it is impossible that you misunderstood them?

Interesting, how this shows your mindset much more clearly than any straight-on question would have. Very, very interesting.

He's not completely wrong... you could make a case for calling Poker a "random game" by describing all the things that were random about it and leaving out the strategy or why certain results are observed-- but you wouldn't be describing the game. The whole point of the "wedge strategy" is to sum up evolution as "scientists think all this came about randomly"-- and, as Dawkins and others note, that just glosses over how it actually came about... how natural selection is the "opposite of random"-- it culls the best replicators and multiplies their information exponentially ala the "selfish gene"... (genomes are like communities of genes working together for the "hope" of being passed on like a "winning team"--) Those who focus on the randomness, can't describe natural selection at all-- they can't explain the beauty of evolution-- the simple algorithm-- why it "looks" designed, but is not. They can't answer the question in the OP and they can't hear how they sound garbled, and I can only imagine it's because, like the faithful--they think they "know" something, they, quite obviously, don't quite know.

But this has been said over and over by many and there are quotes from experts all throughout this thread-- but to no avail. The expert answer to the OP question is "natural selection is the non-random part of evolution" but for some people the answer will always be "there is no evidence that evolution is non-random" or evolution is essentially a "random process". For most people, having random components does not make an entire process random (Poker for example)-- but to them it does.... and it will never be different. Their goal is to define evolution only in terms of the random components and thus they just can't explain it very well or very usefully--