Evolution Not Random

[cyborg]

cyborg's comments are deliberate misrepresentations and supposed reductiones ad absurdum of my arguments.

Refusing to acknowledge the parallels because they make your argument absurd is your problem not mine.

The first one is just a specific example of the argument that my definition of random* "makes everything random", which is a straw man in itself as it is patently untrue.

If it were patently untrue you wouldn't come up with such an easily defeated example such as your dice game.

You are insisting that the nature of the inputs is a good way to describe the nature of the function.

This is absurd. This is your argument.

The second uses a description of "deterministic" that makes every system that is based on a set of at least one rule deterministic, which is absurd because it makes random variable deterministic.

Uh no mijo - that is your misunderstanding - a random variable is not a rule.

 

[Kotatsu]

*which is implied by the OED's "random distribution, a probability distribution, esp. the Poisson distribution" despite sol invinctus' protestations

All very nice, I am sure. I am just curious if a response to my five questions will be forthcoming?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do have knowledge of actual evolutionary process ...

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.

I'm equivocating? You conveniently left off the answer to the second part which is the point many people are trying to address with you.

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.

In case you have forgotten the example, a random number generator produces random numbers in a pool. But only determined numbers are used from the pool. Therefore the randomness only applies to the time it takes to get the determined numbers. The numbers themselves that are eventually taken from the random pool are determined.

In this system, the random element is irrelevant to the determined outcome.

You are taking the random element in evolution and painting the entire process as random because you are applying a math model in which the random element (the nucleic acid substitution) is presumed to be qualitatively the same element which is random in the outcome. In the example I described, the random element in the system is the number but the random element in the outcome is time and that is qualitatively different than the number.

In order for your application of the math model you are fixated on to be appropriate, you need to show that the random nucleic acid substitution is qualitatively the same as the outcome. In other words, you have to support your premise that the outcome is random. We all know the evidence shows the outcome not to be random.

So just as claiming the number outcome in my example is random because the time is random which it takes to retrieve determined numbers from a pool of randomly generated numbers might be theoretically arguable in a math philosophy discussion, for all practical purposes, applying that mathematical model to the actual system is utterly useless.

 

[jimbob]

Does anyone here disagree with the following, and where?

1) Natural selection is probabilisic with various traits "loading the dice of selection" differently.

2) If a population is in equilibrium, the average number of breeding offspring per parent would be one.

3) The actual distribution of breeding offspring per parent is likely to be described by a poisson distribution, with lambda of one.

4) An advantageous trait will raise the average number of breeding offspring per parent above one. Thus lambda willbe raised.

5) Conversely a disadvantageous trait would lower lambda.

6) The more advantageous a trait is, the more there is a selective pressure, and the more the lambda is raised.

7) A selective advantage of 10% equates to a lambda of 1.10 compared to the equilibrium lambda of 1.

ETA:

8) This is best understood as a probabilistic process for the reasons above.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Refusing to acknowledge the parallels because they make your argument absurd is your problem not mine.

There no parallels because you a deliberately misrepresenting my arguments, hence your comments being straw men.

If it were patently untrue you wouldn't come up with such an easily defeated example such as your dice game.

You did not defeat my example because it is impossible to at the beginning of the game (i.e., before any rolls are made) whether any given pair will be selected or not.

You are insisting that the nature of the inputs is a good way to describe the nature of the function.

This is absurd. This is your argument.

Unfortunately for you, that is exactly how probability theory and statistics, well-accepted branches of mathematic, classify functions. In other words, in order to maintain that "insisting that the nature of the inputs is a good way to describe the nature of the function" is absurd, you have to reject large swaths of mathematics.

Uh no mijo - that is your misunderstanding - a random variable is not a rule.

Again, if you knew the first thing about probability theory, you would know that random variables are functions. You should try picking up an undergraduate probability theory textbook and reading the first three or four chapters or a graduate probability theory textbook and reading the first one or two chapters.

 

[sol invictus]

This is an utterly absurd and pointless argument over semantics. It's as if you've got a guy from England and a guy from Spain, and they see a black shirt:

"It's black." "No, es negra!" "No, it's black!" "No, es negra!" "No, it's black!" .....

I'll leave the continuation of this conversation as an exercise to the reader. Meanwhile, since he doesn't seem to have anything at all to say, mijopaalmc has the honor of being the first poster I've ever added to my ignore list.

 

[mijopaalmc]

This is an utterly absurd and pointless argument over semantics. It's as if you've got a guy from England and a guy from Spain, and they see a black shirt:

"It's black." "No, es negra!" "No, it's black!" "No, es negra!" "No, it's black!" .....

I'll leave the continuation of this conversation as an exercise to the reader. Meanwhile, since he doesn't seem to have anything at all to say, mijopaalmc has the honor of being the first poster I've ever added to my ignore list.

This is a perfect example of how the profound ignorance of probability theory causes problems for the discussion. sol invinctus is arguing that the two side of the debate are saying the same thing. They, in fact, are not.

I am saying, "The shirt is colored" (i.e., the claim that systems based in probability are random)

Others are saying, "The shirt is not black" (e.g., the claim that only unbiased systems are random) or "The shirt is cotton" (e.g., the claim that constrained systems are not random).

Both of the statements have no effect on whether the shirt is colored (i.e., systems based in probability are random). In fact, the shirt's not being black (i.e., only unbiased systems are random) is a special case of the shirt's being colored (i.e., systems based in probability are random). My point is that there are many more colors than just (i.e., many more cases of randomness than just the unbiased one) and that its not being black does not effect the fact that it can be worn (i.e., the fact that evolution happens).

 

[Beth]

Once an insect evolves, their exoskeleton limits the size they can evolve into. only two kinds of eyes evolved, compound eyes and regular eyes. There may only be these two options. Eyes will only evolve where there is light and eyes will devolve when light is removed. I am not aware of any organism developing more or less than 2 eyes. Maybe someone else can enlighten us.

I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet. Spiders typically have 8 eyes. I'm not aware of any other species with more than 2 eyes, but spiders definitely do have more.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet. Spiders typically have 8 eyes. I'm not aware of any other species with more than 2 eyes, but spiders definitely do have more.

It's just another variation on the "evolution is not random because it is constrained and biased" argument, which you, as statistician, should is fallacious.

Is a binomial distribution non-random?

 

[Beth]

It's just another variation on the "evolution is not random because it is constrained and biased" argument, which you, as statistician, should is fallacious.

Is a binomial distribution non-random?

I've just read through the thread today. There are clearly different definitions of random at play here amongst parties who have been battling though many threads. I'll not wade into the middle of it other than to state that I agree with Meadmaker; words can have more than one meaning. Evolution can be correctly described as either random or non-random depending on what definition of 'random' is being used.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've just read through the thread today. There are clearly different definitions of random at play here amongst parties who have been battling though many threads. I'll not wade into the middle of it other than to state that I agree with Meadmaker; words can have more than one meaning. Evolution can be correctly described as either random or non-random depending on what definition of 'random' is being used.

Beth for President!

 

[Meadmaker]

Ah, yes, at the Quantum level, you could say there are some "truly random" things going on. However: Those random things hardly make an impact beyond the quantum level, because the probabilities smear out, at coarse grained levels.

That is not the opinion of the average physicist these days.

At least, not the ones who taught me chaos theory.

Of course, there are certain processes where, on the level of interest, it does wash out. Water tends to flow downhill, forming rivers.

But, where will those rivers flow 1 million years from now? The opinion of the average physicist is that it is not only impossible to know for practical reasons, such as the need to measure the position of every rock, fault, grain of sand, and electron inside the mind of every civil engineer who might build a dam across it, but that it is in fact unknowable, because it has not yet been determined. Some of those events will depend on quantum level fluctuations which will, in fact, have macroscopic consequences.

For example, the decision to build that dam may ultimately depend on one person's opinion, and that opinion may very well be based on his mood the day that the paper has to be signed, and that mood may depend on the state of a brain cell within his brain, and that brain cell may be altered by the impact of a gamma ray, which was a quantum event that occurred when an atomic nucleus decayed inside the sun.

And if that dam happens to flood a valley which is the home of an endangered species, then evolution has just been altered based on a quantum event. i.e. on that level, it's random.

Evolution follows predictable patterns, just like water. Most people wouldn't say that water flows randomly. On the other hand, predicting how water will flow over huge time scales is impossible, just like predicting the final outcome of evolution is impossible. In that sense, both evolution and water flow are random.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's just another variation on the "evolution is not random because it is constrained and biased" argument, which you, as statistician, should is fallacious.

No it isn't. It's a question about whether there are any organisms with more than two eyes.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No it isn't. It's a question about whether there are any organisms with more than two eyes.

Perhaps you should read the post from which Beth excised the quote:

I think this would depend on how much pressure specific selection pressures exerted. For example, it does appear that increasing intelligence is a consistent selection pressure. And, it also seems arms and legs or certain kinds of locomotion are consistent. Wide angle vision vs depth perception for predator and prey seems consistent. Faces are relatively consistent.

Now with all those, we have plant, fungi, and microorganisms. They too have some predictable consistencies. So some of the deterministic features of evolution can vary in whole groups. And there may not be a direct line with each selection pressure. Thus the selection pressure for increasing intelligence could suffer a set back depending on certain conditions but those would have some predictability as well.

Once an insect evolves, their exoskeleton limits the size they can evolve into. only two kinds of eyes evolved, compound eyes and regular eyes. There may only be these two options. Eyes will only evolve where there is light and eyes will devolve when light is removed. I am not aware of any organism developing more or less than 2 eyes. Maybe someone else can enlighten us.

Between the groups there are some consistencies. For example, rapidly reproducing organisms rely more on ongoing mutation including active mutation while slowly reproducing organisms rely on variation being already present in the genome when conditions change. Organisms that evolve into overly specialized lifeforms are predictably vulnerable to extinction because they cannot adapt to change.

So there appears to be random and non-random processes at work.

The fact that organisms evolve in response to environmental stimuli, which bias the evolution of specific traits, does not make any mechanism of non-random.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is an utterly absurd and pointless argument over semantics. It's as if you've got a guy from England and a guy from Spain, and they see a black shirt:

"It's black." "No, es negra!" "No, it's black!" "No, es negra!" "No, it's black!" .....

I'll leave the continuation of this conversation as an exercise to the reader. Meanwhile, since he doesn't seem to have anything at all to say, mijopaalmc has the honor of being the first poster I've ever added to my ignore list.

Somehow I don't think two antonyms vs two synonyms are analogous.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet. Spiders typically have 8 eyes. I'm not aware of any other species with more than 2 eyes, but spiders definitely do have more.

Do the eyes all serve the same function? Now I'm going to have to look this up. Curiosity is peaked.

Oooh, found this fascinating blog..

In any event: According to the model, using what we might call brute force evolution, it takes only about 400,000 generations, or perhaps a half-million years, to arrive at what we would regard as a modern camera eye. A half-million years is just a moment in geological time. In fact, over the eons, camera eyes have turned up many different times in creatures as diverse as spiders, squids and ourselves. From the short time frame it is easy to conclude that the camera eye has evolved several different times in several different species, each time starting from scratch. But this has turned out to be an incomplete or simplistic idea. The more we learn about development, and how to think about development, the more intricate this story seems to become.

The spider's camera eye started out in a different direction -- it was probably a compound eye once, and then its multiple, faceted lenses coalesced. Spiders have lots of eyes, primary and secondary, and their secondary eyes sometimes exhibit lens/mirror combinations. So the mathematical model does not really attempt to tell the spider's complicated story. Nor was the model designed to be specific to vertebrate evolution. It does not offer any special explanation for the backward-looking retina of the vertebrate eye.

And we are left with some questions about the pull and tug between the evolving camera eye's two distinctly different functions. Initially the modeled eye is a directional sensor. Ultimately it is an imaging eye. The transitional steps or logical bridges between these two different types of eyes -- two different physiologies, really -- are not clear to me. This is not a criticism of this model. It is a criticism of the way we think about the evolution of vision.

There are excellent images to go with the discussion.

It also supports the premise, evolution is predictable and not random. Just as I said, the mutations may be random, but the ones which are kept are specifically determined.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The fact that organisms evolve in response to environmental stimuli, which bias the evolution of specific traits, does not make any mechanism of non-random.

More proof your mind is boarded shut. You again completely ignore my post. It has been my experience that this is the response of someone who is wrong, knows it and can't admit it.

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.

In case you have forgotten the example, a random number generator produces random numbers in a pool. But only determined numbers are used from the pool. Therefore the randomness only applies to the time it takes to get the determined numbers. The numbers themselves that are eventually taken from the random pool are determined.

In this system, the random element is irrelevant to the determined outcome.

You are taking the random element in evolution and painting the entire process as random because you are applying a math model in which the random element (the nucleic acid substitution) is presumed to be qualitatively the same element which is random in the outcome. In the example I described, the random element in the system is the number but the random element in the outcome is time and that is qualitatively different than the number.

In order for your application of the math model you are fixated on to be appropriate, you need to show that the random nucleic acid substitution is qualitatively the same as the outcome. In other words, you have to support your premise that the outcome is random. We all know the evidence shows the outcome not to be random.

So just as claiming the number outcome in my example is random because the time is random which it takes to retrieve determined numbers from a pool of randomly generated numbers might be theoretically arguable in a math philosophy discussion, for all practical purposes, applying that mathematical model to the actual system is utterly useless.

 

[sol invictus]

Somehow I don't think two antonyms vs two synonyms are analogous.

Don't be so picky. The point is it's a semantic argument, and pointless.

But if you insist: a Hawaiian and an Inuit are in New York on a spring day:

"It's cold!" "No, it's warm!" "No, it's cold!" "No, it's warm!" "No, it's cold!" ...

Happy now?

 

[mijopaalmc]

skeptigirl-

It would help if defined "deterministically chosen"and "determined outcome". To me, they mean there was no other choice or outcome for the mutation. In other words, I see it as meaning that that mutation could only have been to one of the nucleotides not any one to the three.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that you have to ask indicates that you don't know what a straw man is.

So if I ask you if you know what turtles are that means I don't ? That's weird, man.

Seriously, if you think that an exaggeration or caricature is a strawman, then you don't know what the term means.