• 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

Walter Wayne said:
Not true. Mutation isn't an affect of a chaotic process, but a random one. Mutations are governed by chemical bonds of sub-atomic particles, so are described by quantum physics. If all initial conditions are reproduced with infinite accuracy, then different mutations can happen.
Click to expand...
Well my interpretation of "with infinite accuracy" includes the conditions leading to the copy error and the same positions of the nucleic acid substitution molecule.

This is just getting into semantics. I don't have a horse in this race.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
According to you. But you have not made your case that this mathematical model applies to the processes of evolution. It might apply in an oversimplified version of evolution theory. But when that deterministic selection takes on certain properties, the quantity and quality of randomness in the system is overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of the deterministic processes.

If time is random but gene selection is not, are those two components distinct and separate enough to be considered unrelated components? And if only time is random but gene selection is not, then who cares? The random component for all intents and purposes is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The point is, if mutation can be described as a random variable, any Borel measurable function (which includes most functions and all functions that describe selection) of the mutation is itself a random variable. That is a mathematical fact (for which I have offered a proof) regardless of the system that is under examination.
 
mijopaalmc said:
The point is, if mutation can be described as a random variable, any Borel measurable function (which includes most functions and all functions that describe selection) of the mutation is itself a random variable. That is a mathematical fact (for which I have offered a proof) regardless of the system that is under examination.
Click to expand...
Do we have a knee jerk smilie?

Mijo, what is the point of answering if you are going to ignore everything I said? Do you think I'm going to read your citation when you didn't even have the courtesy to reply to my post?

Please reply to what I said about your lack of knowledge of actual evolutionary processes, your over-simplified view of evolution which includes nothing of the last 20 years of genetic science, and the fact organisms direct mutation to increase, decrease or not to occur at all (by actively repairing or not repairing copy errors).

Please respond to what I said about using only those random genetic mutations deterministically chosen and the resulting randomness of time to evolve but not what to evolve. Reply to what I said about the random processes being irrelevant if the only random outcome was time.
 
mijopaalmc said:
The point is, if mutation can be described as a random variable, any Borel measurable function (which includes most functions and all functions that describe selection) of the mutation is itself a random variable. That is a mathematical fact (for which I have offered a proof) regardless of the system that is under examination.
Click to expand...

But, the system under examination (evolution) has no random variable elements, when "random" is defined the way it is in that paper.

If "random" is applied to evolution, it might mean several things:

* "the math is too complicated to work out, right now, so we'll just assume it's 'random', until we get a more powerful computer to do it!"

* "the mutations, being unconsious entities, occur indifferently to the survival of the life form"

Etc.

That paper you were talking about was about random variables. Reality has no such random variables. (Though, some of its simple provisional models might.)
 
You can't piss me off, mijo. I know what I'm talking about and you are the one with the singlemindedness leaving you to avoid actually discussing this.

Please reply to what I said about your lack of knowledge of actual evolutionary processes, your over-simplified view of evolution which includes nothing of the last 20 years of genetic science, and the fact organisms direct mutation to increase, decrease or not to occur at all (by actively repairing or not repairing copy errors).

Please respond to what I said about using only those random genetic mutations deterministically chosen and the resulting randomness of time to evolve but not what to evolve. Reply to what I said about the random processes being irrelevant if the only random outcome was time.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
But Walter at this point is still actually carrying on a discussion with people. Mijo is not.
Click to expand...

Kind of... I have him on ignore but from what others post it's the same old nothingness-- obfuscation rather than clarification to deduce that it is informative to call evolution random.

WW lives for these kinds of threads though... so feel free to engage him... just keep your expectations tempered.
 
Didn't know that. Guess it doesn't surprise me.

The length mijo is going to to avoid addressing my arguments with his position is ... so predictable. ;)
 
Yay...

"If you build it, they will come..."

Mijo and T'ai --together again with Walter Wayne on drums... Jerome does back ups...

do-be-do-be-do
 
The French government just called. They want to award the Légion d'honneur en enculage de mouches to this thread.
 
Is that your own website, T'ai? I notice other than countering two respected scientists with, "Mathematically, I conceptualize evolution as..." there isn't even a clue who it is giving us this pearl of wisdom.
 
What exactly is wrong with the definition of "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution"?

Keep in mind that:

  1. random variables are defined on a probability measure
  2. the continuous functions of elementary algebra and calculus are defined on the Jordan measure or the Lebesgue measure
  3. the replacement of a variable with a random variable, as sol invinctus suggested, does not turn a deterministic process into a stochastic process, because the random variables would not necessarily be defined on the same measure space, or even the same measurable space.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Mijo is correct, and I put the nail in this discussion's coffin long, long ago:

http://www.statisticool.com/evolution.htm
Click to expand...

It is telling that you think an unsigned article purely based on your own personal speculations will trump any scientific argument from here to eternity.

You actually think that you are smarter than all the scientists in the world.

skeptigirl said:
Is that your own website, T'ai? I notice other than countering two respected scientists with, "Mathematically, I conceptualize evolution as..." there isn't even a clue who it is giving us this pearl of wisdom.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's Justin's.
 
mijopaalmc said:
What exactly is wrong with the definition of "random" as "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution"?
...
Click to expand...
Please reply to what I said about your lack of knowledge of actual evolutionary processes, your over-simplified view of evolution which includes nothing of the last 20 years of genetic science, and the fact organisms direct mutation to increase, decrease or not to occur at all (by actively repairing or not repairing copy errors).

Please respond to what I said about using only those random genetic mutations deterministically chosen and the resulting randomness of time to evolve but not what to evolve. Reply to what I said about the random processes being irrelevant if the only random outcome was time.
 
mijopaalmc said:
When I say "all reproduce", I mean all survive conditions that can reasonably expected to occur regularly over the lifetime of the individual in the environment in which it lives and produce offspring that are capable of having offspring themselves with in the parameters provided by the eniviroment. For instance, lung fish have rudimentary lungs so that they can survive the seasonal fluctuations in the water level of their habitat. However, it would be extremely unlikely for any lungfish to survive if all the water sources in their habitat dried up to the point that the earth was cracked and dry since, as I recall, they have to lay their eggs in water or mud. Such "rare stressors" include things such as bolide impacts, pyroclastic flows, and flash floods as they all select without respect to the individual's phenotype even when variation induced by drift and mutation is taken into account. In other word, "all reproduce" refers to those individuals that are subject to selective pressures that select with respect to phenotypes that can be reasonably expected to exist in the population due to variation induced by drift and mutation.
Click to expand...

Would the following, so far theoretical, case fulfil your criterion:

- There is a population which has a trait A which rarely becomes modified to trait A*. Trait A* may or may not be externally visual, so the individuals with trait A may or may not be able to recognise if another individual has trait A or trait A*.
- The population consists of obligate sexuals.
- The occurrence of trait A* is sufficiently rare that two individuals with trait A* will never meet.
- Trait A* may or may not impair the survivability of the individual in common situations. In fact, trait A* may even be beneficial to the survivability of the individual in some cases.
- If an individual has trait A*, it may or may not be able to court an individual with trait A. In fact, trait A* may even make courtship more likely to have a positive outcome for the individual (i.e., it may make it more likely that the individual gets some...)
- If an individual with trait A* manages to court an individual with trait A, it may or may not be able to copulate with it.
- If an individual with trait A* manages to copulate with an individual with trait A, it may or may not result in offspring which survives to be born, hatched, or similar.
- If a coupling between an individual with trait A* and one with trait A results in offspring, this offspring is never fertile.

I'm sorry if this has been done before, but I don't think I have ever read any of the discussions you've been involved in before.
 
skeptigirl said:
Please reply to what I said about your lack of knowledge of actual evolutionary processes, your over-simplified view of evolution which includes nothing of the last 20 years of genetic science, and the fact organisms direct mutation to increase, decrease or not to occur at all (by actively repairing or not repairing copy errors).

Please respond to what I said about using only those random genetic mutations deterministically chosen and the resulting randomness of time to evolve but not what to evolve. Reply to what I said about the random processes being irrelevant if the only random outcome was time.
Click to expand...

I do have knowledge of actual evolutionary process and I have knowledge of how they are described by evolutionary biologists. I understand that they have many different causes including radiation damage and intercalation between and chemical modification of the base pairs. I also understand that organisms can change the frequency with which mutations occur in their genomes and the likelihood that a mutation within given region of their genomes. In that way, mutations are "determined". This, however, is not the standard usage of "deterministic" when describing a deterministic system because, as I recall, the sources you posted referred to the fact that change took place and not what specific mutations took place or whether there was only one mutation that took place.

This as a whole still does not change the fact that you, skeptigirl, are equivocating. I didn't ask if evolution was "acausal" or "unbiased"; I asked if evolution was "based in probability". So, far you have not produced any evidence that it isn't.
 
Kotatsu said:
Would the following, so far theoretical, case fulfil your criterion:

- There is a population which has a trait A which rarely becomes modified to trait A*. Trait A* may or may not be externally visual, so the individuals with trait A may or may not be able to recognise if another individual has trait A or trait A*.
- The population consists of obligate sexuals.
- The occurrence of trait A* is sufficiently rare that two individuals with trait A* will never meet.
- Trait A* may or may not impair the survivability of the individual in common situations. In fact, trait A* may even be beneficial to the survivability of the individual in some cases.
- If an individual has trait A*, it may or may not be able to court an individual with trait A. In fact, trait A* may even make courtship more likely to have a positive outcome for the individual (i.e., it may make it more likely that the individual gets some...)
- If an individual with trait A* manages to court an individual with trait A, it may or may not be able to copulate with it.
- If an individual with trait A* manages to copulate with an individual with trait A, it may or may not result in offspring which survives to be born, hatched, or similar.
- If a coupling between an individual with trait A* and one with trait A results in offspring, this offspring is never fertile.

I'm sorry if this has been done before, but I don't think I have ever read any of the discussions you've been involved in before.
Click to expand...

I think that you are missing my point. While you gave an example of a specific variant that never reproduces in the way that defined it, I am interested in whether, as a whole, a population divides neatly into a group of phenotypes that always (barring a catastrophic event) reproduces and a group of phenotypes that never reproduces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom