• 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

The vast majority of people on this post agree as well as the writers of the Science article, Richard Dawkins and all experts in the field of evolution. Mijo and Jimbob, however, seem bent on convincing themselves and others that it's meaningful to call it random. Oddly enough, Intelligent Design proponent, Michael Behe, has this same quirk. No matter what you say or how many experts tell them that they are being unclear and misleading, they still insist on calling evolution random.
This is what I meant when I called your arguments "irrational" earlier. You simply assume that the experts on evolution must be right about how to apply terms from mathematics ("random") and physics ("deterministic") to their own area of expertise, and that actual arguments are irrelevant. This position is irrational. The fact that you keep mentioning Michael Behe is even worse. It's right up there with "Oh, you like chocolate. Hitler did that too."

Saying that evolution is "not random" is still just as misleading as saying that it's "random", and this discussion is still pointless. It would make much more sense to debate how to answer a creationist that says something like "the theory of evolution says that all of this just randomly appeared". That's they sort of thing a creationist would say, and just saying that "evolution is not random" is obviously not a good answer. My answer would probably start with "You obviously have no idea what the theory says, so stop pretending that you do". Then I'd explain what it actually says. (I'd probably also have to explain what a theory is). There's no need to include a statement like "evolution is not random" in the explanation.
 
Last edited:
Saying that evolution is "not random" is still just as misleading as saying that it's "random", and this discussion is still pointless. It would make much more sense to debate how to answer a creationist that says something like "the theory of evolution says that all of this just randomly appeared". That's they sort of thing a creationist would say, and just saying that "evolution is not random" is obviously not a good answer.


So many good points crammed into a small space.

When I said that the avoidance of the word "random" was ideological, that was, in part, what I was referring to. Saying "evolution isn't random" doesn't actually address the argument. All it does is identify the speaker's "team".
 
This is what I meant when I called your arguments "irrational" earlier. You simply assume that the experts on evolution must be right about how to apply terms from mathematics ("random") and physics ("deterministic") to their own area of expertise, and that actual arguments are irrelevant. This position is irrational. The fact that you keep mentioning Michael Behe is even worse. It's right up there with "Oh, you like chocolate. Hitler did that too."

The problem is that articulett's position is really no more irrational that your position that the definition of "random" that I have been using "makes everything random", because the definition of "random" that I have been using is the definition that experts in probability theory use.

Saying that evolution is "not random" is still just as misleading as saying that it's "random", and this discussion is still pointless. It would make much more sense to debate how to answer a creationist that says something like "the theory of evolution says that all of this just randomly appeared". That's they sort of thing a creationist would say, and just saying that "evolution is not random" is obviously not a good answer. My answer would probably start with "You obviously have no idea what the theory says, so stop pretending that you do". Then I'd explain what it actually says. (I'd probably also have to explain what a theory is). There's no need to include a statement like "evolution is not random" in the explanation.

I think that explaining how a creationist's interpretation of the Theory of Evolution is incorrect is a good way to start.
 
The problem is that articulett's position is really no more irrational that your position that the definition of "random" that I have been using "makes everything random", because the definition of "random" that I have been using is the definition that experts in probability theory use.

And yet you still can't name a single real system (not a mathematical abstraction) which is non-random by your definition.

And by the way, how about a link to one of those "experts in probability theory" using your definition?
 
Last edited:
And yet you still can't name a single real system (not a mathematical abstraction) which is non-random by your definition.

I have, but you insist that I am only referring to "mathematical abstractions".

And by the way, how about a link to one of those "experts in probability theory" using your definition?

Try any textbook or journal article ever published in probability theory. Of course, that assumes the one knows how a probability distribution is defined in probability theory:

Basically, the axiomatization of probability theory begins with the creation of a mathematical space called a probability space designated by the ordered triple [latex]$(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$[/latex]. [latex]$\Omega$[/latex] is a set, which, for our purposes, is almost any collection of objects. If [latex]$\Omega[/latex] is finite or countably infinite, the probability space is called discrete. If [latex]$\Omega[/latex] is uncountably infinite, the probability space is called continuous. [latex]$\mathcal{F}$[/latex] is a family of subsets of [latex]$\Omega$[/latex] called a [latex]$\sigma$[/latex]-algebra whose members share certain attributes and are known as "events". In particular, a [latex]$\sigma$[/latex]-algebra is closed under complementation (i.e., the "opposite" of every event is also an event) and countably infinite unions (i.e., a collection of events is also an event). [latex]$\mathbb{P}$[/latex] is a function called a probability measure that maps each event in [latex]$\mathcal{F}$[/latex] to the interval [0,1] in such a way that [latex]$\mathbb{P}(\Omega)=1$[/latex] and the probability of the union of mutually exclusive events is the sum of their respective probabilities.

A random variable is, by definition, a function, [latex]$X$[/latex] from the probability space [latex]$(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbb{P})$[/latex] to another measurable space, most often [latex]$(\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$[/latex] , the real numbers and the Borel [latex]$\sigma$[/latex]-algebra on [latex]$\mathbb{R}$[/latex] (i.e., the smallest [latex]$\sigma$[/latex]-algebra form by the open intervals of [latex]$\mathbb{R}$[/latex]). The random variable defines a probability measure, known as a pushforward probability measure, on the measurable space [latex]$(\mathbb{R}, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$[/latex] such that [latex]$(X_*(\mathbb{P}))(B)=\mathbb{P}(X^{-1}(B))[/latex]. In other words, that is the pushforward probability measure of [latex]$B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$[/latex] equals the probability measure of [latex] [latex]X^{-1}(B)\in\mathcal{F}[/latex], the preimage of [latex]$B$[/latex] in [latex]$\mathcal{F}[/latex] (i.e., [latex]$\{A\subset\Omega}\}\in\mathcal{F}$[/latex] that maps to [latex]$\{B\subset\mathbb{R}\}\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$[/latex]). This pushforward measure is called a probability distirbution.

A stochastic process is a family of random variables [latex]$\{X_{t}\}_{T\in{t}}$[/latex] for an index set [latex]$T$[/latex] If [latex]$\Omega[/latex] is finite or countably infinite, the stochastic process is called discrete. If [latex]$\Omega[/latex] is uncountably infinite, the stochastic process is called continuous.
 
Last edited:
I have, but you insist that I am only referring to "mathematical abstractions".

Really? So why not name one?

Every single example you gave was a mathematical model. Should I remind you (again) of what they were? One particularly entertaining one was "orbital dynamics", by which you meant the ideal N body problem with only classical Newtonian gravity acting.


Nowhere in there is a definition of random, let alone one like yours. I just checked two books on probability on amazon using booksearch. Neither appears to define "random" (although both use the word quite a lot).

Here are a long list of web definitions, not a single one of which comes even close to yours:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+random
 
Last edited:
I have, but you insist that I am only referring to "mathematical abstractions".

I believe, since we all acknowledge that QM refers to the lowest levels of reality we know of and that its behaviour fits the abstraction of "random", he is asking you to name a physical process that is not, in some way, involved with QM and as such is not describable by a probabilistic treatment.
 
I believe, since we all acknowledge that QM refers to the lowest levels of reality we know of and that its behaviour fits the abstraction of "random", he is asking you to name a physical process that is not, in some way, involved with QM and as such is not describable by a probabilistic treatment.

Which of course he cannot. But it's actually stronger than that. Let me quote from a book ("An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Volume 1", Feller, first page):

William Feller said:
When a coin is tossed, it does not necessarily fall heads or tails; it can roll away or stand on its edge. Nevertheless, we shall agree to regard "head" and "tail" as the only possible outcomes of the experiment....It is impossible to measure the life span of an atom or a person without some error, but for theoretical purposes it is expedient to imagine that these quantities are exact numbers.

In other words, it is only when we restrict to an idealized model that we can give rigorous definition to these concepts (and apparently Feller never defines "random" even in those cases). For many purposes that's fine, but when you attempt to apply the results of such a restricted analysis to a real, complex, and nuanced problem like evolution, those nice sharp black and white distinctions start to fail you.

The tremendous progress you can make once you so vastly simplify the problem can give you confidence you understand the real thing, but reality is not so kind. People that are good at quantitative reasoning (which may or may not include mijo) often fail to understand this, thinking the techniques and concepts that worked so well on their probability and statistics homework must apply to everything.
 
Last edited:
And from my perspective, the problem isn't that there is nothing random IN the process of evolution. The problem is in describing the overall process as random. It is not.
I might agree with you. But, out of curiosity, I would like to know which parts of the process do you think are random? (and, also, provide a rough working definition of random, if you can, while doing so.)
 
This is what I meant when I called your arguments "irrational" earlier. You simply assume that the experts on evolution must be right about how to apply terms from mathematics ("random") and physics ("deterministic") to their own area of expertise, and that actual arguments are irrelevant. This position is irrational. The fact that you keep mentioning Michael Behe is even worse. It's right up there with "Oh, you like chocolate. Hitler did that too."

Saying that evolution is "not random" is still just as misleading as saying that it's "random", and this discussion is still pointless. It would make much more sense to debate how to answer a creationist that says something like "the theory of evolution says that all of this just randomly appeared". That's they sort of thing a creationist would say, and just saying that "evolution is not random" is obviously not a good answer. My answer would probably start with "You obviously have no idea what the theory says, so stop pretending that you do". Then I'd explain what it actually says. (I'd probably also have to explain what a theory is). There's no need to include a statement like "evolution is not random" in the explanation.

I totally disagree with you. Words are meant to convey meaning... those who are known to convey meaning successfully to people tend to be the the ones who use the words with the most clarity. Those who have never conveyed meaning... rather, they've obfuscated understanding... are the the only people I know adamant about referring to evolution as random. The fact that selection is not random and is the major component of Darwins theory makes it perfectly acceptable and clear to most people when you say evolution is NOT random. That's why the experts in the field say as much. I agree that most people describe it in two parts.... but as in the Dawkins review and Mijo shows-- people of a certain ilk only seem to hear the random... which is indistinguishable from the creationist strawman that scientists think this all happened randomly-- akin to a tornado in a junkyard building a 747.

That totally negates natural selection. In physics there is no reproduction... Even Kaufmann says the two systems are not analagous. To all biologists it is much more incorrect and misleading to call evolution random... by so many definitions of the word. It is not, however, misleading to call it non-random even though it contains random components. The fact that you do not understand this because you think they are both are equally wrong is similar to Meadmaker's argument... but when we are talking about conveying meaning... the majority disagree with you... including the experts. Somehow you've imagined that they are both identically wrong, but as far as people who actually explain the process to others successfully, they are clearly not identically misleading. And I think a case has been repeatedly made for that. Are there any experts in the field conveying meaning to people by saying evolution is random or even "evolution is not non random". To me, that's a bunch of nothing, and it's not something I've heard any expert or any teacher or science article say. It IS something that Behe and Mijo are bent on saying--

You think the two are identically misleading. None of the experts do. My position is perfectly rational. Mijo cannot even bare to call it a too part process... he bends over backwards to describe selection as random. I think that's hilarious. I think it's hilarious that you think that it's "equally incorrect" whatever that means to call evolution random as to refer to it as the OP did. And what exactly is your expertise. I don't think the two phrases lead to the same wrong conclusions. To me, Mijo and his ilk are far "less correct" because they just aren't conveying information... like you and Meadmaker they are conveying this sense of imagine expertise not warranted by the evidence. What makes you the expert on how evolution is described and what words or as "incorrect" as others? I find that hysterical, frankly. If incorrect means "misleading" than random is more in correct than not in reference to "evolution" as multiple people have said both here and multiple links and peer reviewed papers and talk origins.
 
The problem is that articulett's position is really no more irrational that your position that the definition of "random" that I have been using "makes everything random", because the definition of "random" that I have been using is the definition that experts in probability theory use.
I just took your definition and showed you what it implies. I didn't commit any sort of fallacy when I did so. (If I did, show me where). So my position is definitely not irrational.

I also didn't say that your definition makes everything random. I specifically said that it doesn't make mathematical models based on classical physics random. However, you keep insisting that there are physical systems in the real world (which is better described by quantum mechanics) that are not random according to your definition. This is definitely false. I wouldn't have had any problems with anything you said if you had just said that your definition applies to mathematical models rather than processes in the real world.

I tried to suggest to you that you just change your definition, but you didn't even consider it. If you had given it some thought, you would have seen that one important difference between evolution and the gravitational 3-body system is that only one of the theories that we would use to describe these systems approximately, is random according to your definition.

I think that explaining how a creationist's interpretation of the Theory of Evolution is incorrect is a good way to start.
I think we all agree about that.
 
Mijo cannot even bare to call it a too part process... he bends over backwards to describe selection as random.

And articulett blatantly misrepresents my position yet again. I understand (and have said as much) that evolution consists of both mutation and selection, but, because identical initial conditions do not necessarily lead to identical final condition (especially in reference to the genetic make up of an individual, which can be known with absolute certainty), selection is also random.
 
I understand (and have said as much) that evolution consists of both mutation and selection, but, because identical initial conditions do not necessarily lead to identical final condition (especially in reference to the genetic make up of an individual, which can be known with absolute certainty), selection is also random.
The same thing could be said for weather patterns. Identical initial conditions do not necessarily lead to identical final conditions, in hurricanes, either. Would hurricanes be considered random?

What about convergence? If two initial conditions are NOT identical, and yet they can be lead to identical final conditions, through selection pressure, how would that lead to a hypothesis that selection must be random?
 
You think the two are identically misleading. None of the experts do.
...
I think it's hilarious that you think that it's "equally incorrect" whatever that means to call evolution random as to refer to it as the OP did.
You may be right that it would be more misleading to say that it's "random" than to say that it's "not random", but that doesn't make it a good idea to call it "not random". That would still be the second most misleading description of evolution that you will ever hear from someone who understands the theory.

And what exactly is your expertise. [...] What makes you the expert on how evolution is described and what words or as "incorrect" as others? I find that hysterical, frankly.
How is this relevant? I'm presenting my arguments very clearly, so that anyone who reads them can examine them and try to find flaws. I'm not asking you or anyone else to trust me.
 
Mijopaalmc, your point has been obscured by the fact that you didn't distinguish clearly between mathematical models and reality. I believe that this is what you're really trying to say:

Mijopaalmc in an alternative universe said:
If we were to rephrase the theory of evolution as a mathematical model, where animals are represented as points in the "animal space" that Dawkins mentioned in "The blind watchmaker", it would be correct to call this model a "stochastic process", or alternatively a "random process".

Let me know if you disagree. It seems to me that mathematics doesn't define the word "random" by itself. It only defines it paired with some other word, e.g. "random variable", "random process", etc. The relevant definition here is "random process" (or "stochastic process" if you prefer), and it only applies to mathematical models, not to real-world systems. For that reason, we have to start by finding a way to interpret the theory of evolution as a mathematical model before we can even apply the definition. This makes "animal space" is a useful structure. Each point of animal space represents a possible genetic code. (A vast majority of them represents "animals" that could not possibly be alive).

I'm still not sure if this makes it right to say "evolution is random". Why should that three-word statement be interpreted as the precise statement I made in the quote box above, rather than as a statement similar to the junkyard/hurricane thing that Articulett keeps bringing up?
 
You think the two are identically misleading. None of the experts do. My position is perfectly rational.

Actually, I'm going to have to go with Fredrik on this one. First, since there IS a level of randomness, it isn't completely non-random, and it definitely isn't completely random, either. So I'm not sure this whole thread has a point, in the end, because it's both and neither at the same time.

But, right. It isn't "random". :)
 
You may be right that it would be more misleading to say that it's "random" than to say that it's "not random", but that doesn't make it a good idea to call it "not random". That would still be the second most misleading description of evolution that you will ever hear from someone who understands the theory.


How is this relevant? I'm presenting my arguments very clearly, so that anyone who reads them can examine them and try to find flaws. I'm not asking you or anyone else to trust me.

I agree with your posts.

Only creationists portray evolution as haphazard. Saying evolution is "not hapazard" wouldn't be misleading, whilst saying it is "not random" would.

How is this relevant? I'm presenting my arguments very clearly, so that anyone who reads them can examine them and try to find flaws. I'm not asking you or anyone else to trust me.
And that is my my view too, unlike articulett. It is slightly ironic, because she has accused my of being unclear, yet has never pointed out where the errors are in my numerical examples, or even why the numerical examples are innapropriate.

I would argue that "nonrandom" implies inevitability, and there was no inevitability as to the form that the adaptations took, although there was inevitability about the fact of adaptation. That is why I think "nonrandom" is wrong and misleading.
 
And here I thought only the Bible Thumpers were good at semantic spin. Mere pikers when it comes to scientist/philosophers pinning down the meaning of random
What ever happened to good old observation by experiment?
Can't I just clone something or do my own evolution engineering?
 
To be fair, however, I still don't understand exactly what definition of "random" Mijo and jimbob are using.

1) Subject to quantum effects
2) Probabilistic in that we don't know all the variables
3) Unknowable

If it's 1), then it's a tautology, because everything is like that. If it's 2), I think everybody can agree, though it's not very useful to call evolution "random" if that's the only definition we're using. 3) Doesn't make much sense.

In every case, I don't see what we're debating, actually. Everything is random, everything is probabilistic.

Sure, mutations are "random" in that we can't tell which ones are going to occur. Is the selection mechanism "random" ? In that we can't tell how it'll go down, sure. But then, what's the point ?

So, which one is it ?
 
To be fair, however, I still don't understand exactly what definition of "random" Mijo and jimbob are using.

1) Subject to quantum effects
2) Probabilistic in that we don't know all the variables
3) Unknowable

If it's 1), then it's a tautology, because everything is like that. If it's 2), I think everybody can agree, though it's not very useful to call evolution "random" if that's the only definition we're using. 3) Doesn't make much sense.

In every case, I don't see what we're debating, actually. Everything is random, everything is probabilistic.

Sure, mutations are "random" in that we can't tell which ones are going to occur. Is the selection mechanism "random" ? In that we can't tell how it'll go down, sure. But then, what's the point ?

So, which one is it ?

For me I'd say that it is more than we don't know all the variables, but that truly random quantum events can have significant effects. Some local ionization caused by a radioactive decay will, because weather is nonlinear eventually have a significant effect on the weather, and this would affect which organisms reproduce.

I would class it as sufficiently significant if an event changes which organism reproduces.

Similarly, if a nonlinear system (chaotic orbits) caused a mass extinction, then by extension this is also significantly affected by truly random events.

Does that make it clear?
 

Back
Top Bottom