Evolution Not Random

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because "mixed" processes ended up being either random or determistic.

For example, supposed I have a random number generator and I take the result and multiply by 2. We have a random process followed by a determistic one, but the process taken as whole is random, as knowing the additional state of the system will not allow a predictable outcome.

Supposed in stead of just doubling the number produced, I double the number then add 8, divide the result by 2, and then subtract the original number. If I combined the random number generator and this process I get a determistic result. No matter what number the generator produces, I get 4 out. So this process is determistic.

Both examples are "mixed" by your definition, but one is obviously a random process (identical starting points can yield different results) and the other is obviously determistic even though it has a random sub-process.

Walt

Trouble is your analogies are not representative of evolutionary processes.

 

[JoeEllison]

Calling evolution "random" strikes me as stupid and intentionally dishonest. Whether it is ALWAYS meant that way isn't clear, but it is used that way often enough that honest people should avoid the word "random" to describe the entire process of evolution... at least if they want to ensure clarity and avoid conflict.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Calling evolution "non-random" strikes me as stupid and intentionally dishonest. Whether it is ALWAYS meant that way isn't clear, but it is used that way often enough that honest people should avoid the word "non-random" to describe the entire process of evolution... at least if they want to ensure clarity and avoid conflict.

 

[JoeEllison]

You are so hung up on your pet idea you don't even get what people are saying to you. If anyone is showing ignorance, I'd say it was you.

What about the concept of mixed random and deterministic processes is so hard for you to grasp? Read my post above. Maybe that will help.

Yeah, well... my impression is that his "hang up" is intentional, and allows for continued dishonest discourse from him. There's nothing hard or complex about the idea of a "mixed" process.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Perhaps, in summary, we can say: Evolution could become ever more predictable, the more we understand about the factors that go into it. If we can't track all of the physics, of every aspect, yet; at least we can start by studying patterns in evolutionary convergence.



It's analogous to the weather. The weather could become ever more predictable, the more we understand the factors that go into it. If we can't track all of the physics, of every rain drop, yet; at least we can start by studying common patterns in how weather events form.

This is a reasonable hypothesis. I don't believe many people would consider the weather random. It clearly is the result of physical processes of heat and movement of the planet.

Perhaps what I know about evolution leads me to the conclusion there is random mutation involved, but the actual driving forces are not random and produce predictable results. I have to wonder just how acquainted with the actual processes of evolution mijo is. His focus on a single aspect seems to be ignorant of the entire process which is not random.

For example, with microorganisms they acquire genetic material from other organisms. It isn't random. They acquire drug resistant genes in their entirety. Drug resistance predictably will disseminate throughout the microbes and literally spread around the world. That includes spreading to multiple species. This is not a matter of the luck of the draw. The speed with which drug resistance spreads is faster than one would get with simple random acquisition of genes.

Then there is the active mutation we are just now discovering occurs. Organisms have the ability to not repair genetic mutations or to repair them. By inhibiting genetic repair mechanisms, microbes increase mutation rates and defeat the antigen antibody response of the host organisms. It turns out that under environmental stress, these mechanisms actually increase thereby resulting in greater mutation rates. There is nothing random about this system.

For slowly reproducing organisms such as ourselves, genetic diversity has actually been selected for. While there may be random mutations occurring, when stressors occur such as a pandemic, if the variation is not already in existence in the genome there isn't time for some mutation to come along and save the species. That mutation has to already be in place. The pandemic will then result in that genetic trait being amplified.

If you want to argue the pandemic was random, then you are talking about something completely different. How far are you going to go? It's like the weather. Was the butterfly flapping its wings random, therefore the resulting effect on the weather random? Or once the wings flapped were the effects on the weather then set in motion making the weather deterministic? I assume we are talking about evolution itself and not whether the pandemic or weather change was random.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a couple examples, I'll see if I can find some simpler ones.

Evolutionary Rate Variation at Multiple Levels of Biological Organization in Plant Mitochondrial DNA.

Sloan DB, Barr CM, Olson MS, Keller SR, Taylor DR.

Department of Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

We examined patterns of mitochondrial polymorphism and divergence in the angiosperm genus Silene and found substantial variation in evolutionary rates among species and among lineages within species. Moreover, we found corresponding differences in the amount of polymorphism within species. We argue that, along with our earlier findings of rate variation among genes, these patterns of rate heterogeneity at multiple phylogenetic scales are most likely explained by differences in underlying mutation rates. In contrast, no rate variation was detected in nuclear or chloroplast loci. We conclude that mutation rate heterogeneity is a characteristic of plant mitochondrial sequence evolution at multiple biological scales and may be a crucial determinant of how much polymorphism is maintained within species. These dramatic patterns of variation raise intriguing questions about the mechanisms driving and maintaining mutation rate heterogeneity in plant mitochondrial genomes. Additionally, they should alter our interpretation of many common phylogenetic and population genetic analyses.

Multiple major increases and decreases in mitochondrial substitution rates in the plant family Geraniaceae.

CONCLUSION: The existence of major, mitochondrial-specific changes in rates of synonymous substitutions in the Geraniaceae implies major and reversible underlying changes in the mitochondrial mutation rate in this family. Together with the recent report of a similar pattern of rate heterogeneity in Plantago, these findings indicate that the mitochondrial mutation rate is a more plastic character in plants than previously realized. Many molecular factors could be responsible for these dramatic changes in the mitochondrial mutation rate, including nuclear gene mutations affecting the fidelity and efficacy of mitochondrial DNA replication and/or repair and--consistent with the lack of RNA editing--exceptionally high levels of "mutagenic" retroprocessing. That the mitochondrial mutation rate has returned to normally low levels in many Geraniaceae raises the possibility that, akin to the ephemerality of mutator strains in bacteria, selection favors a low mutation rate in plant mitochondria.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Transcription-related mutations and GC content drive variation in nucleotide substitution rates across the genomes of Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis lyrata.

CONCLUSION: Our observations indicated that mutation rates vary among genomics regions as a function of base composition, suggesting that previous observations of "selective constraint" on non-coding regions could more accurately be attributed to a GC effect instead of selection. The negative correlation between nucleotide substitution rate and gene density provides a potential neutral explanation for a previously documented correlation between gene density and polymorphism levels within A. thaliana. Finally, we discuss potential forces that could contribute to rapid synonymous rates, and provide evidence to suggest that transcription-related mutation contributes to rate differences between intergenic and synonymous sites.

I'm still waiting for comments on the fact that certain traits evolve consistently such as types of locomotion, faces, number of eyes, and intelligence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nonneutral evolution of organelle genes in Silene vulgaris.

Knowledge of mitochondrial gene evolution in angiosperms has taken a dramatic shift within the past decade, from universal slow rates of nucleotide change to a growing realization of high variation in rates among lineages. Additionally, evidence of paternal inheritance of plant mitochondria and recombination among mitochondrial genomes within heteroplasmic individuals has led to speculation about the potential for independent evolution of organellar genes. We report intraspecific mitochondrial and chloroplast sequence variation in a cosmopolitan sample of 42 Silene vulgaris individuals. There was remarkably high variation in two mitochondrial genes (atp1, atp9) and additional variation within a third gene (cob). Tests for patterns of nonneutral evolution were significant for atp1 and atp9, indicative of the maintenance of balanced polymorphisms. Two chloroplast genes (matK, ndhF) possessed less, but still high, variation and no divergence from neutral expectations. Phylogenetic patterns of organelle genes in both the chloroplast and mitochondria were incongruent, indicating the potential for independent evolutionary trajectories. Evidence indicated reassociation among cytoplasmic genomes and recombination between mitochondrial genes and within atp1, implying transient heteroplasmy in ancestral lineages. Although the mechanisms for long-term maintenance of mitochondrial polymorphism are currently unknown, frequency-dependent selection on linked cytoplasmic male sterility genes is a potential candidate.

Multiple major increases and decreases in mitochondrial substitution rates in the plant family Geraniaceae.



So if there are mechanisms controlling mutation rates, then the mutations are certainly not random.

 

[articulett]

Yes, mutations themselves are not really random... areas of genomes have evolved to be mutate more readily because doing so is more likely to be harmless or to garner rewards...but some areas must copy perfectly for an organism to survive... these are highly conserved and resistant to mutations.

There is unpredictability involved... but the process itself is not "random"... natural selection de-randomizes the process by aggregating the "best". Events you might call "random" are involved, but there are few definitions of random that would allow anyone to think it's useful or meaningful to sum up evolution as random.

Having random components does not a random process make.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is a reasonable hypothesis. I don't believe many people would consider the weather random.

And I don't know anyone who would not consider the weather random. It's almost as if we are using the same word, but speaking a different language.

Out of respect for the professors of mathematics and engineering who taught me a specific use of the word random, I will continue to call weather random. If you are using some other definition of the word, you can call it non-random if you wish. We will both be right, because words can have multiple meanings.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

How far are you going to go?

<snip>

IIRC, last time this subject came up it went all the way to the Aspect experiment, and how it seems elementary particles don't have values for their parameters until the parameters are measured.

Some people seem to have a objection to natural processes being thought of as deterministic + noise.

Good luck.

 

[articulett]

IIRC, last time this subject came up it went all the way to the Aspect experiment, and how it seems elementary particles don't have values for their parameters until the parameters are measured.

Some people seem to have a objection to natural processes being thought of as deterministic + noise.

Good luck.

But it's fun to watch the semantic gymnastics so those people can avoid acknowledging that, don't you think? Especially since it's the same people in repeated threads trying very hard to somehow justify saying "evolution is random" or "evolution is not nonrandom" --however unclear those phrases might be when talking about evolution. They tear down everyone else's way of describing evolution including scientists in the field, while offering nothing that anyone else finds useful in return while pretending to be "technically correct" per their own imagined "true and singular" definitions.

I think it's funny that it's the same people doing the same thing predictably on every thread where someone dares mention evolution is not random. It's like their goal on this forum is to obfuscate understanding of evolution and occasionally act as apologists for religion or to skewer Dawkins. This makes me think they are creationists denying they are creationists and pretending to be all sciency and skeptical --because that is exactly what Behe does. I want to be wrong... but it's just too predictable. It cannot be a coincidence. I'm feeling that my hypothesis is gathering confirming data. Why would someone who does not want to be seen as a creationist go through such semantic blatherings to describe evolution in such a non-descriptive unclear way? Why would they have a problem with the way actual scientists do describe the process using the actual words they use?

 

[sol invictus]

Please answer the following simple question:

Suppose you start a game of pinball by shooting the ball out. You don't touch the flippers, so the ball (after bouncing around a few times) will drain out either behind the left flipper, behind the right flipper, or down the middle in between.

Question: do you consider the motion of the ball random?


EDIT - in case you're not familiar with pinball machines, this photo shows the three possibilities pretty clearly. If you don't touch the flippers, the ball will end up draining out the bottom by falling either through the center or to the far left or right. The machine is angled down slightly, so the ball usually drains after a few bounces.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Trouble is your analogies are not representative of evolutionary processes.

There not meant to be. There are an illustration of why we don't call process made up of determistic and random sub-processes, "mixed" process. Because the term doesn't tell you if the process, when taken as a whole is random or determistic.

Walt

 

[joobz]

Question: do you consider the motion of the ball random?

The motion of the ball is random. The net outcome isn't.

I won't change my usage of words simply because IDers will missunderstand the randomness involved in evolution.

 

[chulbert]

Calling evolution "non-random" strikes me as stupid and intentionally dishonest. Whether it is ALWAYS meant that way isn't clear, but it is used that way often enough that honest people should avoid the word "non-random" to describe the entire process of evolution... at least if they want to ensure clarity and avoid conflict.

Let us concede that neither "random" nor "non-random" are entirely satisfactory for describing the process of evolution. But are they equally wrong? Can one be more appropriate than the other dependent upon the audience?

I typically characterize evolution as random inputs into a non-random process. Among educated individuals versed in the details and nuances of the discussion, I am therefore comfortable calling it collectively a random process. However, among individuals who are not interested in the rigors of debate, to whom the word "random" often conjures images of whales giving birth to chickens, I feel that "non-random" is closer to the truth than "random".

 

[Meadmaker]

The motion of the ball is random. The net outcome isn't.

Good point. I was going to say that the motion of the ball is random, but of course it depends on the time scale involved.

Let us use the language of a mathematician to describe the motion.

Let us assume that the ball is launched at t=0, and t, representing time, goes upward. i.e. t=1 second is one second after the ball is launched.

Let us also assume that the maximum amount of time the ball spends in the pinball machine before draining is 10 minutes. This value is determined using empirical observation.

The "motion of the ball" can be represented by describing the position of the ball at time t. We'll call that p(t).

For t<10 minutes, p(t) is a random variable. For t>10 minutes, p(t) is not a random variable.

So, for a mathematician, the motion of the ball may be considered random, or non-random, depending on exactly what question related to motion he wants to answer.

I won't change my usage of words simply because IDers will missunderstand the randomness involved in evolution.

Nor should you. You should use the best language possible to describe to your target audience the phenomena in question. If you happen to be describing evolution at the time, that might mean "random" or it might be "nonrandom", depending on exactly which aspect of evolution you are describing, and to whom you are describing it.


The article from the OP did a real disservice, in my opinion. It's title somehow implied that this study confirms Darwin's theory. Is that correct? I certainly hope not, because the finding of the study was not what the article claimed. The article found that most traits evolved deterministically, but some traits evolved stochastically. If one or the other finding would disprove Darwin's theory, then the theory would have been disproved.

Fortunately, we don't have to rewrite biology textbooks just yet. Darwin's theory was not being tested in this study. This study was simply refining a description of the mechanism involved. If you were to read the journal article, you would find no reference at all to any question about verifying evolutionary theory, because that wasn't under study. That question has been settled long ago. The biologists are just fine tuning their understanding of the details at this point.

Meanwhile, the paper defined the terms "stochastic" and "deterministic" in a particular way, and then tried to determine whether traits evolved stochastically or deterministically. We could argue with their definitions if we were so inclined, but that would be foolish. The words have ambiguity in their definitions, but the paper's authors defined exactly what definitions they were using, and how they were applying them to their specific aspect of evolution. Therefore, whether or not we like the way they defined their terms, those terms were defined precisely within the paper, and anyone reading the paper can see what they meant, and learn something about evolution from the paper.

 

[tuc0]

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

Why do you hate typography?
Why do you hate good taste?

 

[sol invictus]

No one that's ever struggled to keep the ball in play in pinball would agree that its motion is random. Why? Because it's not, at least not by the common definitions of the word:

random, n., a., and adv.

<snip noun definitions>

B. adj. (from phr. at random: see A. 3).

1. a. Not sent or guided in a special direction; having no definite aim or purpose; made, done, occurring, etc., at haphazard.

b. Statistics. Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population; also, produced or obtained by a random process (and therefore completely unpredictable in detail); random distribution, a probability distribution, esp. the Poisson distribution; random error: see ERROR 4d; random noise (see quot. 1954); random number, a number selected from a given set of numbers in such a way that all the numbers in the set have the same chance of selection; also, a pseudorandom number; random process, (a process characterized by) a sequence of random variables (see also quot. 1937); random sample, a sample drawn at random from a population, each member of it having an equal or other specified chance of inclusion (sometimes contrasted with quota sample s.v. QUOTA n. 4); so random sampling; random selection, a random sample; random sampling; random variable, variate, a variable whose values are distributed in accordance with a probability distribution; random walk, the movement of something in successive steps, the direction, length, or other property of each step being governed by chance independently of preceding steps.

It is obvious that neither evolution by natural selection nor the motion of a pinball are random by the first definition. By the second one would have to qualify the statement "evolution is random" by specifying precisely in what sense, and what the distribution is.

One can say "evolution is not random" and be perfectly correct. One could also say the contrary, with some qualification - which just illustrates the utter futility of arguing over semantics.

 

[articulett]

No one that's ever struggled to keep the ball in play in pinball would agree that its motion is random. Why? Because it's not, at least not by the common definitions of the word:

It is obvious that neither evolution by natural selection nor the motion of a pinball are random by the first definition. By the second one would have to qualify the statement "evolution is random" by specifying precisely in what sense, and what the distribution is.

One can say "evolution is not random" and be perfectly correct. One could also say the contrary, with some qualification - which just illustrates the utter futility of arguing over semantics.

Beautifully said, and all said before... but it will make no difference to the same people who argue the same non points every time someone dares to utter the phrase "evolution is not random"-- usually while addressing a someone who thinks that "scientists think this "all" got here randomly".

They pretend the issue is technical correctness or that the other person is wrong to say evolution is not random--but I suspect obfuscation rather than clarity is the actual goal. All the people who seem "contrary" in this thread or who aren't really saying anything-- do the same thing on every thread where the words "evolution is not random" are mentioned. They must search for it.

It amuses me. Most of their posts have a creationist/apologetics bent to them, and I wondered if it was just me. But this thread proves that it is not, I think.