Evolution Not Random

[articulett]

What do you mean by 'deterministic' in this context?

The information (genes) that go on to be part of evolving organisms is determined by which organisms are "preferentially selected" b their environment-- the information that that gets copied into the future determines the direction of evolution of the creature containing that DNA.

The article was restating what Darwin said. Most scientist would say that mutations are relatively random (though that is not exactly true... there are hot spots and highly conserved areas and so forth... but it's random in that it doesn't "care" whether it helps the organism it's in survive or not. Then the environment selections from that pool or randomness (mutants, recombinants, etc... some stuff lives to reproduce and pass on the DNA and some stuff doesn't... all the stuff that is in the DNA that played a role in that DNA getting copied (surviving to get itself copied) gives the new organism it finds itself in the same genetic advantage it gave it's parent... and the competition elimination round begins again.

The direction of evolution is determined by the survivors/reproducers of the generations before.

 

[mijopaalmc]

The information (genes) that go on to be part of evolving organisms is determined by which organisms are "preferentially selected" b their environment-- the information that that gets copied into the future determines the direction of evolution of the creature containing that DNA.

The article was restating what Darwin said. Most scientist would say that mutations are relatively random (though that is not exactly true... there are hot spots and highly conserved areas and so forth... but it's random in that it doesn't "care" whether it helps the organism it's in survive or not. Then the environment selections from that pool or randomness (mutants, recombinants, etc... some stuff lives to reproduce and pass on the DNA and some stuff doesn't... all the stuff that is in the DNA that played a role in that DNA getting copied (surviving to get itself copied) gives the new organism it finds itself in the same genetic advantage it gave it's parent... and the competition elimination round begins again.

The direction of evolution is determined by the survivors/reproducers of the generations before.

See how articulett redefines "deterministic" so it describes evolution?

I thought only creationists equivocated with such ease and familiarity.

 

[zooterkin]

The information (genes) that go on to be part of evolving organisms is determined by which organisms are "preferentially selected" b their environment-- the information that that gets copied into the future determines the direction of evolution of the creature containing that DNA.

The article was restating what Darwin said. Most scientist would say that mutations are relatively random (though that is not exactly true... there are hot spots and highly conserved areas and so forth... but it's random in that it doesn't "care" whether it helps the organism it's in survive or not. Then the environment selections from that pool or randomness (mutants, recombinants, etc... some stuff lives to reproduce and pass on the DNA and some stuff doesn't... all the stuff that is in the DNA that played a role in that DNA getting copied (surviving to get itself copied) gives the new organism it finds itself in the same genetic advantage it gave it's parent... and the competition elimination round begins again.

The direction of evolution is determined by the survivors/reproducers of the generations before.

Thanks! I'd go along with all that, I'm just not sure I'd use the word 'deterministic' to describe it, as even if it is correct it's easily misunderstood (see above).

 

[zooterkin]

See how articulett redefines "deterministic" so it describes evolution?

I thought only creationists equivocated with such ease and familiarity.

See how mijo fails to read.

If I understand correctly, the "determinism" is that natural selection determines which genes are passed to the next generation, and on which mutation and natural selection then operate again. Evolution is not deterministic in the sense of aiming at a goal, or being entirely predictable.

 

[badnewsBH]

See how articulett redefines "deterministic" so it describes evolution?

I thought only creationists equivocated with such ease and familiarity.

Sorry for getting in the middle of a good scrap, but according to dictionary.com, articulett is using deterministic in a perfectly acceptable way.

link

Quoting here...

adjective
an inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes

I believe this is what she was getting at. How inevitable the results of natural selection are in any particular case is beyond my knowledge, but I don't think she redefined the word.

 

[mijopaalmc]

See how mijo fails to read.

If I understand correctly, the "determinism" is that natural selection determines which genes are passed to the next generation, and on which mutation and natural selection then operate again. Evolution is not deterministic in the sense of aiming at a goal, or being entirely predictable.

But my question has always been: what evidence is there for evolution being mathematically deterministic (non-random)?

articulett, and now zooterkin, are ignoring that a mathematically deterministic system is a system where there is only one result in existence for every set of initial conditions, whereas mathematically random (i.e., a stochastic) system is a system where there is more than one result in existence for every set of initial conditions.

 

[Wowbagger]

Wouldn't that make articulett's argument as "semantic" as mine?

I'm just pointing out that it helps to give a working definition of "random", whenever you use the word, in a scientific discussion.

If both parties agree to a definition of the word, there is no longer (in theory) a semantical issue, and we can debate the merits of arguments from their other, more important, properties.

Of course, if both parties can't agree on a defintion, you can just use different words. One person might use "non-deterministic", another "unconsious indifference", still another "happy accident", etc., etc. And, the debate can still proceed on other merits.

That is, of course, until someone swaps definitions midstream.

(I recently read a book that did just that. First it claimed Natural Selection was the heart of Evolution. Then, it describes examples of Natural Selection that the author claims are not Evolution, because some time earlier he decided to redefine the words with ridiculous limits attached to them.)

 

[zooterkin]

But my question has always been: what evidence is there for evolution being mathematically deterministic (non-random)?

articulett, and now zooterkin, are ignoring that a mathematically deterministic system is a system where there is only one result in existence for every set of initial conditions, whereas mathematically random (i.e., a stochastic) system is a system where there is more than one result in existence for every set of initial conditions.

What point are you trying to make? How does that statement apply to evolution, anyway? Who is trying to claim that it is either mathematically deterministic or random?

 

[articulett]

Sorry for getting in the middle of a good scrap, but according to dictionary.com, articulett is using deterministic in a perfectly acceptable way.

link

Quoting here...

adjective
an inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes

I believe this is what she was getting at. How inevitable the results of natural selection are in any particular case is beyond my knowledge, but I don't think she redefined the word.

Random and deterministic are relatively useless terms unless defined or related to something. Mijo wants to use the word random and apply it to evolution which would make sense if you meant "unplanned"... but it doesn't say anything. Poker contains randomness but not the same sort of randomness as roulette. In evolution the randomness provides the pool of options, but those that are "selected" are the ones that accumulate the beneficial genomes and multiply exponentially.

We've actually gone over this in a whole thread. Mijo wanted some scientific evidence that scientists were saying that evolution is not-random... and I gave him tons... but he dismissed all of it, because he wants to believe it's useful and descriptive to call evolution random. I think this is wild. This is exactly what Behe does. He just uses the term random so loosely, that it become meaningless. And it keeps people from understanding the very essence of evolution--natural selection... which is NOT a random process. And random is the opposite of biased... but evolution is biased... in has "direction" but the direction comes from what came before... just like our cities or an ant colony or an ecosystem or free market or the internet... not from "on high" or from some "plan" or "randomly".

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Random and deterministic are relatively useless terms unless defined or related to something.

If the terms are useless, than why is the OP about the terms?

 

[mijopaalmc]

What point are you trying to make? How does that statement apply to evolution, anyway? Who is trying to claim that it is either mathematically deterministic or random?

My point is that the insistence that evolution be deterministic is a nonsensical knee-jerk reaction to creationists calling it "random". It is therefore based on the same faulty notions as the creationist insistence that evolution cannot happen because science says it is random.

Why are "we" letting the creationists determine how "we" talk about evolution and randomness?

 

[Walter Wayne]

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.

Except it takes all of 30 seconds to describe the difference. In fact many non-technical people already know that biased can still be random. Ask them if the amount you move in one turn in a game of monolopy is random. Most people will say yes, but the distribution is triangular (you roll 2 six-sided dice and take the sum, so 7 is more likely than any other number).

The problem is that most people think that deterministic, if they know the word, means ... well ... deterministic. They use non-random in the same way. The problem is that evolution is most definitely not deterministic, and the article provided does nothing to show otherwise.

Walt

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oops... didn't know I was making a Faux Pas... what font should I use when I've had enough Times New Roman and Arial. I was hasty and picked the first readable but not boring looking thing from the font list. I think comic font abuse would decrease if they'd named it "Komic" sans... --further down alphabetically.

I may start my own campaign, "Keep comic sans, ban pedantic time wasting campaigns."

 

[cyborg]

The problem is that most people think that deterministic, if they know the word, means ... well ... deterministic. They use non-random in the same way. The problem is that evolution is most definitely not deterministic, and the article provided does nothing to show otherwise.

I think you'll find once the die is rolled the number of moves one makes in a game of Monopoly is rather deterministic...

 

[Walter Wayne]

I think you'll find once the die is rolled the number of moves one makes in a game of Monopoly is rather deterministic...

And you still don't know where you will be in a few turns, because you have to roll the dice again. You don't stop rolling die after one turn, just as you don't stop mutating genes after one generation.

Walt

 

[cyborg]

And you still don't know where you will be in a few turns, because you have to roll the dice again.

Hmm... I didn't realise that my ignorance of the mechanism of the die affected the rules of the game.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And you still don't know where you will be in a few turns, because you have to roll the dice again. You don't stop rolling die after one turn, just as you don't stop mutating genes after one generation.

Walt

The point he is making is that evolution; using the monopoly analogy, rolls the dice multiple times each turn until the desired role is found. The desired role is based on the environment at the time. If you need Boardwalk and Park Place you keep rolling until you get the proper role to place your piece on Park Place and then keep rolling until you role snake eyes.

 

[cyborg]

The point he is making is that evolution; using the monopoly analogy, rolls the dice multiple times each turn until the desired role is found. The desired role is based on the environment at the time. If you need Boardwalk and Park Place you keep rolling until you get the proper role to place your piece on Park Place and then keep rolling until you role snake eyes.

Hmm... I didn't realise getting what I want was part of the rules of Monopoly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...stochastic processes ....

Mijo's favorite word. FYI for those uninitiated in his posts:

Stochastic process from Answers.com

(mathematics) A family of random variables, dependent upon a parameter which usually denotes time. Also known as random process. A physical stochastic process is any process governed by probabilistic laws. Examples are (1) development of a population as controlled by Mendelian genetics; (2) Brownian motion of microscopic particles subjected to molecular impacts or, on a different scale, the motion of stars in space; (3) succession of plays in a gambling house; and (4) passage of cars by a specified highway point.

In each case, a probabilistic system is evolving; that is, its state is changing with time. Thus the state at time t depends on chance: It is a random variable x(t). The parameter set of values of t involved is usually (and will always be in this article) either an interval (continuous parameter stochastic process) or a set of integers (discrete parameter stochastic

stochastic process
In probability theory, a family of random variables indexed to some other set and having the property that for each finite subset of the index set, the collection of random variables indexed to it has a joint probability distribution. It is one of the most widely studied subjects in probability. Examples include Markov processes (in which the present value of the variable depends only upon the immediate past and not upon the whole sequence of past events), such as stock-market fluctuations, and time series (in which temperature or rainfall measurements, for example, are taken at the same time each day over several days).

For more information on stochastic process, visit Britannica.com.

stochastic process
A process characterized by the values taken by a set of random variables whose values change with time. Standard examples include the length of a queue, where there is a probability of someone leaving or entering in a given interval of time, but the actual events of people leaving and entering are randomly distributed; or the size of a population, or the quantity of water in a reservoir.
Oxford University Press, Philosophy Dictionary

Wolfram Math World

Stochastic Process
Doob (1996) defines a stochastic process as a family of random variables {x(t,-),t in J} from some probability space (S,S,P) into a state space (S^',S^'). Here, J is the index set of the process.
Papoulis (1984, p. 312) describes a stochastic process x(t) as a family of functions.

A stochastic process^WP, or sometimes random process, is the opposite of a deterministic process (or deterministic system) in probability theory. Instead of dealing only with one possible 'reality' of how the process might evolve under time (as is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a random process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions. This means that even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are many possibilities the process might go to, but some paths are more probable and others less.

In the simplest possible case ('discrete time'), a stochastic process amounts to a sequence of random variables known as a time series (for example, see Markov chain). Another basic type of a stochastic process is a random field, whose domain is a region of space, in other words, a random function whose arguments are drawn from a range of continuously changing values. One approach to stochastic processes treats them as functions of one or several deterministic arguments ('inputs', in most cases regarded as 'time') whose values ('outputs') are random variables: non-deterministic (single) quantities which have certain probability distributions. Random variables corresponding to various times (or points, in the case of random fields) may be completely different. The main requirement is that these different random quantities all have the same 'type'.[1] Although the random values of a stochastic process at different times may be independent random variables, in most commonly considered situations they exhibit complicated statistical correlations.

Deterministic system (mathematics)^WP
In mathematics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. Deterministic models thus produce the same output for a given starting condition. [1]

So, now that you have all those finer points of the mathematics of probability conquered, lets get to the part that actually matters. That would be this paragraph from the Wiki quote above:

A stochastic process, or sometimes random process, is the counterpart to a deterministic process (or deterministic system) in probability theory. Instead of dealing only with one possible 'reality' of how the process might evolve under time (as is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions. This means that even if the initial condition (or starting point) is known, there are many possibilities the process might go to, but some paths are more probable and others less.

So what do you have with evolution? You have some random events mixed with selection pressures that determine which of the random events will be selected. The system is not entirely random, nor is it entirely deterministic.

Case closed.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Another interesting thing about randomly selecting numbers from any distribution with finite frist and second moments is that the more numbers you select (i.e., the more you repeat the random trial) the closer then average value of your selections gets to the expected value of random variable described by the probability distribution. Thus even if evolution has a "flat distribution", it can display the convergent behavior that hes been empirically observed and causes so many people to call it "non-random".