• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution Not Random

mijopaalmc said:
All that I am say is that the definition of "random" as "unbiased" is not borne out by probability theory, as the majority of random variables and their corresponding probability distributions would not be "random" if such a definition were used.
Click to expand...
This is the gobbledegook. Explain it so that someone other that yourself could understand it.
 
I have no comment on the OP subject as yet. Not until someone confuses non-random for teleological selection.

I just want to approve of Articulett's use of Comic Sans as opposed to some cold and impersonal font. I see this akin to Hillary Clinton's "moment." which may have, as an example of Chaos Mathematics, won her New Hampshire.

:lol2:
 
mijopaalmc said:
Nothing in that article actually say that evolution is not random in the mathematical sense, i.e., "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution". Evolution (in particular natural selection) can be random in that sense a still display the convergence on adaptive optima describe in the article.

The way to prove that evolution is deterministic is to come up with data that say individuals of a given group of phenotypes always reproduce while individuals of all the other phenotypes never reproduce. So far no evidence of that nature has ever been produced.
Click to expand...
My first thought seeing the OP was Articulett must be egging mijo on.

Why don't you try to merge your semantic arguments into something closer to reality?

Let's try this. Take your claim that for evolution to be random you would not see, "individuals of a given group of phenotypes always reproduce while individuals of all the other phenotypes never reproduce." Replace the semantic label "individual" with "the group as one". That would be the "probability distribution" referred to in the article. Now what you have are changes which exceed the limits of the group (aka the probability distribution) and are sufficiently detrimental are not going to reproduce. That actually includes each individual, BTW, because there are going to be mutations which are fatal.

At the same time, changes which are beneficial can still draw the group into a changed probability distribution.

It is so obvious that why you insist on your bizarre interpretation is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
That was my point: the authors of the reportage and the authors of the journal article are falling prey to the oldest trap (yes, that is a slight bit of hyperbole) when discussing randomness. "Random" doesn't mean "unconstrained", "unbiased", or even "equiprobable". If that were true, the vast majority of the random variables that are described by probability distributions would not be random at all.
Click to expand...
Right, they are confused but you are not. :rolleyes:

Your problem as I see it is that incorrectly you are considering every single mutation as driving evolution. There are billions of mutations which have no effect on evolution. Those would be the random changes you are hung up on. The problem is, yes, those are random changes, they just don't happen to result in evolutionary changes. Natural selection pressures determine which of those random changes are going to matter.
 
skeptigirl said:
My first thought seeing the OP was Articulett must be egging mijo on.
Click to expand...

It's true... I can't help it. It's like Paul starting the "annoying creationist" thread. Every time someone says that evolution is not random... Mijo interjects to tell them "yes it is if you define random as anything having to do with probability --which is the technically right really true way to define random which makes me right and Dawkins wrong... yada.... yada... blah.. blah nothing something sciencey words tangent"

I think this is hysterical. This is why Behe's so maddening. It sounds like he's sort of saying something, but he's really just tossing up a lot of sciencey sounding terms over and over to conclude that "evolution is random". It's almost Pavlovian." Evolution is random .... evolution is random .... repeat....evolution is random." If the goal is clarity, then that is about as clear as saying "Poker is random". It misses the very essence of what natural selection is--

So, ask yourselves, why is there this endless loopy response every time someone dares to say "evolution is not random" in defiance of creationist stawman #4 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Learn the biggies... when you hear them, expect a creationist.... if you hear them repeated over and over like a mantra using new words and new ways of saying the same nothingness... consider it confirmed. No explanation will work... you'll be sucked into a loop where you think they are just about to "get it", but no-- they can't and won't. It's the funniest thing.

A creationist can never explain evolution coherently, though they seem to imagine themselves experts on the topic. They are never interested in the latest developments or communicating clearly. But they are sure eager to tell everyone else how wrongly THEY are communicating.

It's an old woo trick. Avoid saying anything regarding what you believe or what you think is a better way to describe things or what words people should use-- instead, just point out how everybody else is wrong (and tell yourself in your head that this means you are right). As long as woo don't say what what they think or believe in any clear way, it can't be disproven... So they build up their "truth" in their head by knocking down the best competition in the real world.

They just never say anything you can pin down or find meaning in. I want everyone to see this for themselves. The more they say, the less you'll understand what they are trying to say... because what they are really trying to say is that "they're right", but they won't say what they're right about (in Mijo's case he believes that it's makes sense to someone somewhere to describe evolution as random... that he is more clear than all the scientists who say otherwise.)

That's kind of funny, don't you think? I think it's funny that he's so predictable. Plus when I see other people involved in his miasma it confirms the fact that it's not me-- it's him. He loves the attention--like Kleinman, this is his favorite subject to prove himself right about--so don't think I'm being mean.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
"Random" doesn't mean "unconstrained", "unbiased", or even "equiprobable".
Click to expand...

It does, however, mean "non-deterministic."

Since anyone who is interested in the subject knows exactly how the elucidated mechanisms of evolution function, calling it "random" or "cheesy" or "pork and beans" is irrelevant -- we know what is going on behind the term. Thus using "random" to describe evolution is pointless when the audience is educated.

The question is, then, why would you use the term "random" when the average moron on the street will completely misinterpret its meaning in this context? Methinks this is the reason you use it. I agree with the conclusion many here have reached regarding your real motives.

Suppose blue is the favorite color of all true patriots. Suppose green is the favorite color of all terrorists. Suppose we find that the favorite color of our ancestors was aqua. Clearly, aqua is neither blue nor green. I am sure, though, that most of those trying to find favor with the patriots would insist aqua is blue (-ish, but of course the -ish is in the fine print, just as "random, but constrained and biased to the point of deterministic").
 
rocketdodger said:
It does, however, mean "non-deterministic."

Since anyone who is interested in the subject knows exactly how the elucidated mechanisms of evolution function, calling it "random" or "cheesy" or "pork and beans" is irrelevant -- we know what is going on behind the term. Thus using "random" to describe evolution is pointless when the audience is educated.

The question is, then, why would you use the term "random" when the average moron on the street will completely misinterpret its meaning in this context? Methinks this is the reason you use it. I agree with the conclusion many here have reached regarding your real motives.

Suppose blue is the favorite color of all true patriots. Suppose green is the favorite color of all terrorists. Suppose we find that the favorite color of our ancestors was aqua. Clearly, aqua is neither blue nor green. I am sure, though, that most of those trying to find favor with the patriots would insist aqua is blue (-ish, but of course the -ish is in the fine print, just as "random, but constrained and biased to the point of deterministic").
Click to expand...

But the point is that nothing can be "constrained and biased to the point of deterministic". If there is at least one other possible outcome, even if it has a probability of 0, the system is "stochastic" or "random". "Stochastic", or, to a lesser extent, "random", is truly the most rigorous term that can be used to describe, and all the obfuscating and equivocating that articulett attempts will not make that false.
 
mijopaalmc said:
But the point is that nothing can be "constrained and biased to the point of deterministic". If there is at least one other possible outcome, even if it has a probability of 0, the system is "stochastic" or "random". "Stochastic", or, to a lesser extent, "random", is truly the most rigorous term that can be used to describe, and all the obfuscating and equivocating that articulett attempts will not make that false.
Click to expand...

Well, I have no issue with you calling it random in the interest of rigor. I have an issue with people hearing that evolution is random and then thinking this means "random with a flat distribution," which is what most people will think.
 
rocketdodger said:
Well, I have no issue with you calling it random in the interest of rigor. I have an issue with people hearing that evolution is random and then thinking this means "random with a flat distribution," which is what most people will think.
Click to expand...

You seem to be demanding a precision out of the English language that it simply does not possess. The fact that there is no single English word the refers solely a description by mathematical probability. I have in the past both used the words "probabilistic" and "stochastic" and emphasized the need to move away form "random" to "probabilistic" or "stochastic", but I always run into the problem that they are in some way synonymous to "random" and that people tend to object to the idea that evolution is "random" or that it can be accurately described by mathematical probability. For instance, one of articulett's common refrains is "random components a random process doe not make", which is manifestly untrue given that a function of a random variable* is itself a random variable. Here is a proof.

*in reference to the claim that mutation is random but natural selection is not, so evolution itself is not random
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Well, I have no issue with you calling it random in the interest of rigor. I have an issue with people hearing that evolution is random and then thinking this means "random with a flat distribution," which is what most people will think.
Click to expand...

And add to this, alas, that most people will think, when someone tells them that biological evolution is non-random or deterministic, that that means it's directed or goal oriented.

Ideally biology teachers and texts present the empirical process of evolution, but I fear the majority of students only remember some key or buzz words for the multiple choice exam. Then they don't recognize evolution when it is described with different words or analogies than what they got in the classroom and are game to be bamboozled by Intelligent Design advocates and various crackpots.

The majority of people just don't think through things. The process of evolution is an easy one to understand if one just apply's a little mental examination. But when talking to believers, I've found they'd sooner grab the simplistic notion of a grand tinkerer making stuff, because that's a simple model that requires no cogitation. All it takes is a static mental picture.

And then, there's the getting hung up on words.
Are we toast or what? :hb:
 
Apathia said:
And add to this, alas, that most people will think, when someone tells them that biological evolution is non-random or deterministic, that that means it's directed or goal oriented.

Ideally biology teachers and texts present the empirical process of evolution, but I fear the majority of students only remember some key or buzz words for the multiple choice exam. Then they don't recognize evolution when it is described with different words or analogies than what they got in the classroom and are game to be bamboozled by Intelligent Design advocates and various crackpots.

The majority of people just don't think through things. The process of evolution is an easy one to understand if one just apply's a little mental examination. But when talking to believers, I've found they'd sooner grab the simplistic notion of a grand tinkerer making stuff, because that's a simple model that requires no cogitation. All it takes is a static mental picture.

And then, there's the getting hung up on words.
Are we toast or what? :hb:
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
mijopaalmc said:
I have in the past both used the words "probabilistic" and "stochastic" and emphasized the need to move away form "random" to "probabilistic" or "stochastic", but I always run into the problem that they are in some way synonymous to "random" and that people tend to object to the idea that evolution is "random" or that it can be accurately described by mathematical probability.
Click to expand...

That is unfortunate, especially since anyone who really believes clearly does not understand the mechanisms.

I have to imagine, though, that the reason people object is not mathematical or scientific but rather public perception. There are many smart people who seem to have taken up arms against you on this issue, and I don't see how they could misunderstand evolution so greatly -- the only remaining conclusion is that they are tired of the stupidity of evolution opponents and seek to avoid using any ambiguous terms.

Maybe we should just say "evolution is evolution, plain and simple."
 
articulett said:
I do get tired of the creationist straw man and purposeful obfuscation of what is and isn't random in regards to evolution and what "random" means.
No scientists says that evolution is random. There are random components to the mutation process... but the process itself is deterministic.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'deterministic' in this context?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom