Biology Needs to Work Harder Against the Claim of Random Chance!!

[Alric]

You know. And what would be the problem if randomness does play a part in evolution by natural selection? Tough. Evolution happened. We've got fossils (with transitional forms, thank you very much), DNA and anatomic morphology and all of science confirming evolution. If someone has a problem with the small detail that mutations are random because of a delusion its up to them to educate themselves.

Like we did.

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker
I don't think this is an accurate presentation of creationist views. Of course, "creationist views" aren't uniform anyway. There is no one "creationist view" of evolution, or of creation.

The phrase "completely unpredictable" is functionally equivalent to "random chance", "accident", etc. All those words imply fundamental unpredictability.

I know that it has been mentioned, elsewhwere, but there is a conceptal difference between unpredictability and randomness.

To someone who doesn't know, the next word in this phrase would be unpredictable "Sir I bear a magic vers with mystic words and magic ...."

It is a mnemonic for the digits of pi, looking at the number of letters. The next word is "spelling".

That was unpredictable with inadequate information, but not random, and would be predictable with sufficient information. A truly random event is unpredictable with any amount of non-supernatural information.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker
Certainly that is true. It also happens to be accurate. Name any example of an event which increased the diversity of life on Earth that was not accidental.

Oh, not you, too!

Name such an event that was accidental.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker
I'm afraid they do. See the "Evolution not random" thread for a recap of why it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is.

You misunderstand. Using the word "random" as a shortcut for "we need a more powerful computer" does not conflict with the theory. However, that does not imply that there are certain aspects of the process we may never be able to calculate, anyway.

It is like predicting the weather. No one (worth mentioning) thinks anything in the weather is random chance. We understand that it is all fundamentally driven by physics and stuff. We just can not build a powerful-enough computer to track all the variables; and our understanding of the "initial conditions" is limited.

Back to life: The more we understand about the process of Evolution, and its initial conditions, the less of it will be in the box marked "chance". Although, there is a good chance we will never have perfect knowledge to remove the box, completely.

The weather is one reason why I say that natural selection is not only best modelled probabilisically, but is actually probabilistic. A chaotic system like the atmosphere will, over a long enough time, (several weeks?) be significantly affected by the presence or absence of a few ions caused by aradioactive decay event, and their consequent alteration of the "seed conditions". This means that the occurance of any particular weather event would be significantly affected by random factors. This will affect the "selection" of which organisms reproduce.

In short, even if all initial conditions on Earth were identical, in two seperate "trial universes", say at the time of the KT impact, both versions would have different species evolving.

Originally Posted by sol invictus
If chance plays a role (and I think it does - a central and important one) then those who study evolution aim to understand and characterize it, not "remove" it (whatever that even means).

I mean removing unpredictability. The more they understand and characterize it, the more predictable things become.

I'd disagree, you could quantify odds, and (in principle) the chances of particular set of traits evolving but what you are doing is to quantify the odds. If something is truly random that is the best that the analysis can produce.

This is surprisingly powerfull, with some very simple assumptions and numbers, can actually provide meaningful analysis:

A successful pair of barn owls could easily produce 25 chicks over that 5 years. However the population is declining in many parts of the world.

This means that on average, fewer than two chicks per pair will produce breeding offspring. The odds of a barn-owl chick surviving to breed could be *about* 1:12.
​

full argument below:

Actually I think of it modulating the mean value for the number of reproducing offspring per parent, and thus the chance of the traits being transmitted or surviving for a particular number of generations. (Assuming a poisson distribution, which I would argue is probably adequate.)

Thinking about the actual odds, the stability or otherwise of populations and the brood-sizes, you can conclude that any individual organism at birth is unlikely to breed.

Barn owls, for example, have a clutch-size of about 5, (many sources, for example here), mates at one year old, tends to live for 1-5 years inthe wild, and 15-20 years in a more benign environment, they can have two broods in a year.

A successful pair of barn owls could easily produce 25 chicks over that 5 years. However the population is declining in many parts of the world.

This means that on average, fewer than two chicks per pair will produce breeding offspring. The odds of a barn-owl chick surviving to breed could be *about* 1:12.

It is thus far more likely for a deleterious to be removed than for an advantageous one of a similar effectiveness to be retained.

Suppose a chick had a trait that doubled its chances of successfull reproduction; it would now have a 1:6 chance of successful reproduction. This particular trait, arising in a single individual is 6x more likely to die out in one generation than survive.

Suppose a chick had a trait that halved its chances of reproduction; it would now have a 1:24 chance of successful reproduction. This trait, arising in a single evolution, is 24x more likely to die out within a single generation than to survive.

If the advantageous trait conferred a 11.5x advantage compared to the lack of trait, then the odds of the chances of survival for one generation would be 11.5:12=23/24, and the odds of the trait being removed would be 1:24, the same as the odds of the original deleterious trait surviving.

Given a large enough population, and enough time, of course some beneficial traits will survive, and once established, will spread through the population.

Again, how likely this is for a particular trait, can best be explored with a probabilistic treatment.

Originally Posted by jimbob
I read many creationist arguments as this:

"Scientists say that evolution is random, and that makes no sense because how could something haphazard create all the wonderful animals that you see in the world?"

There often seems a (deliberate?) confusion of what "random" means, and a pretense that in this case it is synonomous with "haphazard".

Try it, you can almost always replace "random" with "haphazard" in the creationist arguments about evolution, which is inappropriate in the context of evolution.

Yep. "haphazard" would be another synonym for the creationist distortion of Evolution.

I'd point out that no scientist is saying evolution is haphazard. If you are trying to convey the subtle difference between "random" and the subset of random that is "haphazard", I think the casino description works. The game of roulette is random, but in the long term, the house wins.

Unequal odds can still be random. (With a fair die, I'll win if I shake the numbers 1-5 and you can win if I shake the number 6...)

 

[Vorticity]

You had best tell the physicists about this. They are under the impression that they are quite significant.

Name one, outside those talking about the quantum level.

Me. I could give you an endless list of others, but you've asked for one.

I accept the quantum level as driven by chance. But, that chance is minimized at larger scales.

Not necessarily. There are many trivial and not-trivial examples where the chance certainly does not cancel out at larger scales.

See, for example, this paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/19/7741

I am one of the authors of this paper, but I'm not going to specify which one. Suffice to say, the point of the paper is that what we call "atomistic fluctutaions" (i.e. QM randomness) can and does have an effect on the behavior of (in this example) turbulent, macroscopic fluids.

The argument you're making above may be a road you don't want to go down. The effect of randomness (especially QM-level randomness) on large-scale systems is becoming a hot topic in physics lately.

 

[Wowbagger]

I happen to agree with what most of you are saying here; and most of what I was trying to say does NOT really contradict most of it, either. But, before I get to specific responses, perhaps we should start over a little bit.

Here is a quote from Ben Stein's Expelled web site:

educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

I suspect virtually every science-loving person here will agree that this is not a valid argument for Intelligent Design, nor does it adequately address the Theory of Evolution. If my methods of communicating why have been flawed, I would like to know how everyone else would phrase their response to it.

Thanks!

 

[Vorticity]

I suspect virtually every science-loving person here will agree that this is not a valid argument for Intelligent Design, nor does it adequately address the Theory of Evolution.

Agreed.

Hey: Does Stein list any of these supposedly fired individuals?

 

[Meadmaker]

In other words, Mother Nature doesn't like to be anthropomorphized.

I didn't catch that the first time through.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Wowbagger-

Creationists' deliberate misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution doesn't excuse biologists' ignorance (deliberate and willful or otherwise) of probability and the apparent equivocation in which both creationists and biologists engage when discussing randomness and evolution.

 

[Meadmaker]

My response to this:

educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.

First of all, I would castigate Mr. Stein for inaccurate statements. No one ever got fired for believing in evidence of design. If they got fired, they were fired for not following the curriculum. As for whether or not anyone has been denied tenure, that gets a little bit more dicey. At the college level, there have been cases where someone was denied tenure and their association with the ID movement has been blamed. In the cases with which I am familiar, the scientists in question may have been denied tenure for that reason, but their science record was less than stellar. If he has a case where an accomplished science professor was denied tenure because of ID, I would like to see it. The most famous case I am aware of is Guillermo Gonzalez, who might be said to fit the description Stein gave, but the case is hardly clear cut.

As for ridicule, well, buck up whiners. A lot of people think your beliefs are goofy.

As far as life being the result of accidental random chance, that is what the evidence shows. Any appearance to the contrary is due to lack of comprehension of physics and mathematics. Some patterns, once they appear, are stable, and so if they come about by random chance are likely to persist. Others are unstable, and likely to disappear. This process is true even for life itself. In biology, we call this "natural selection". and the understanding of this phenomenon is necessary to understand how complex life can arise without the need for design.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think the whole argument is kind of pointless unless you acknowledge the misunderstanding of the role of chance in evolution is a result of their desire to not believe in evolution rather than the cause of it.

They can desire anything they want. If they want to defeat Evolution, they should learn to "know thy enemy".

Quantum events really are truly random, and no amount of observation or knowledge can ever reveal anything which will eliminate the randomness.

Quantum events can have macroscopic consequences, which can be magnified to genuinely global scale consequences.

As applied to evolution, this means that extinction events, mutations, births, deaths and all the other events that occur and influence evolution can be a consequence of quantum events, which means they are also truly random. We cannot predict the end results of evolutionary process, and this inability is not just a consequence of incomplete measurements or inability to analyze data. It truly hasn't been determined yet.

Fine. That still does not eliminate one of the goals of scientists: to reduce as much of the randomness as possible, and to make as much of the process as predictable as possible. Even if they will never get 100% of the job done, due to quantum fluctuations.

It is disingenuous to claim the Theory of Evolution is all about random chance, for that reason, and others.

When I roll a die, I say that the outcome is due to random chance. Despite this, I know that I will not roll a 7. The result is not completely unpredictable.

Dang English language. "Unpredictable" has multiple meanings as well, from non-deterministic (the more you know, the better the predictions, but you will never achieve 100% accuracy), to just flat-out-never-can-tell (never can achieve even 1% accuracy).
In my experience, too many Creationists lean into the later, than the former, when describing Evolution.

All right, I will. Chimpanzees and humans have different numbers of chromosomes. I can't recall the details of who has more, but it is known that at some point in the gene line of the common ancestor of the two, two chromosomes combined. (Or maybe one split. I can't recall the details.) Scientists can say which two chromosomes in one of the genomes are equivalent to the single chromosome in the other genome.

That chromosome changing event was random. It was an accident. It just happened for no particular reason.

That context of "accident", I accept. That is the non-deterministic type. The more we investigate why the accident happened, the more we will learn about it, even if we never achieve 100% of the story. And, the probability of that accident occurring, somewhere, over time, was reasonable, anyway.

The type of accident I was referring to, was the mythical kind, where you would never, in principal, be able to ever figure anything out, as to how and why it happened. And/Or the type accident, where the probability of it occurring was 1 in many, many trillions, and the age of the Universe would have to be multiplied by a billion or two, before the event is likely to happen.

In my experience, too many Creationists think Evolution is an example of that last type of accident.

I'm afraid this is incorrect. See the other discussion, although we can rehash it here if you are interested.

Actually, like biologists, meteorologists seek to reduce chance, as much as possible, in weather systems, as well. Even if they can never achieve 100% accuracy.

So, for that reason, my analogy to the weather holds. Although, I should have probably made that part clearer.

200 years ago, Laplace famously said that an intellect who could measure and analyze every part of the universe in sufficient detail could know all the past and the future. 150 years later, modern science decided Laplace was mistaken.

And, yet science is still driven by developing and testing predictions. Modern science may have demonstrated Laplace was mistaken, but that does not mean science gives up the entire ship.

He insists that evolutionst are in unanimous in their agreement that complex structures did not arise by chance. So, if I can find an evolutionists who doesn't agree, the statement would be disproved, would it not?

They would have to demonstrate that chance plays a fundamental role, in the end results of Natural Selection, to the same satisfaction that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal demonstrates it in the quantum level.

How does "selection" produce anything? It doesn't

You misunderstand.

My point was that the entire process of Natural Selection does build complex structures. The process has two halves: Selection and Modification. Neither one, alone, can build complexity. But, when you combine them into one algorithm, they can. That is what I meant.

In the mathematics that describes random processes, such as most of quantum mechanics, the "smearing out" is called convergence of random variables and arguably occur because the system is described by random variables rather than in spite of it. Convergence of random variables is observed quite frequently in simple probabilistic experiments such as coin tossing or dice rolling in the fact that in repeated trials the proportion of a certain event happening out of all the other events approaches a fixed value.

In the long run, the more convergence tends to happen, the more predictable the process. So, even though you have a lot of randomness behind the scenes, the end result is something we could predict a thing or two about, with some semblance of good accuracy.

That statement is false in two important ways:

1) the weather is ultimately determined by quantum mechanics, which is truly random, and

2) the weather is chaotic, which means tiny variations in the initial conditions (for example, small errors in measurement or small quantum fluctuations) get magnified enormously over time.

The result is that certain aspects of the weather are fundamentally unpredictable, regardless of the size of the computer used. For example, the exact temperature a week from this moment at the tip of the Eiffel tower cannot be predicted, period.

Maybe I exaggerated the point. However...

However certain other aspects of the weather are predictable - that it will be warmer on average in July than January in the northern hemisphere, for example.

The same is true for evolution - certain general features are predictable, but the specific details are not.

...for this reason, and others, I say the essence of my analogy holds up fairly well.

Most creationists tend to agree that many aspects of the weather are predictable, and that the whole thing is not just a futile study of completely random chance. However, they also tend to assume Evolution is the opposite.
So, more (accurate) analogies with the weather might be a good thing.

(snip)
A simple "dumb" process producing a solution that we currently couldn't have "intelligently designed". And all due to (pseudo)random variation and a selection algorithm.​

A very nice analogy, actually.

If someone has a problem with the small detail that mutations are random because of a delusion its up to them to educate themselves.

But, they won't. And, their ignorance is damaging science. You want to help stop the damage? Help us develop ways to educate them.

I know that it has been mentioned, elsewhwere, but there is a conceptal difference between unpredictability and randomness.

See beginning of this post, on the different meanings of "unpredictable". The Creationist usage is usually not the same as the scientific one.

See also my above comments about the weather. I may have exaggerated my point, but the essence of the analogy still holds.

I'd point out that no scientist is saying evolution is haphazard. If you are trying to convey the subtle difference between "random" and the subset of random that is "haphazard", I think the casino description works. The game of roulette is random, but in the long term, the house wins.

To many creationists, all those words mean pretty much the same thing. There is no subtle difference to them. But, I think the Casino analogy could work to illustrate some points.

Not necessarily. There are many trivial and not-trivial examples where the chance certainly does not cancel out at larger scales.

See, for example, this paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/19/7741

I am one of the authors of this paper, but I'm not going to specify which one. Suffice to say, the point of the paper is that what we call "atomistic fluctutaions" (i.e. QM randomness) can and does have an effect on the behavior of (in this example) turbulent, macroscopic fluids.

The argument you're making above may be a road you don't want to go down. The effect of randomness (especially QM-level randomness) on large-scale systems is becoming a hot topic in physics lately.

Ah, very good! I like when I am proven wrong with evidence!! I wish more folks on this forum would bring forth such studies, instead of merely arguments.

Would you agree that Science tries to develop predictable results, as much as possible, even if they do realize they would never achieve 100% success, due to quantum-level randomness?

If so, would you consider it disingenuous for someone to criticize the Theory of Evolution, as relying on random chance?

If not, how would you respond to someone who does criticize Evolution in that way?

Hey: Does Stein list any of these supposedly fired individuals?

I only read about half the content on that site (including the blogs and some of the press articles). I do not recall seeing such a list. Maybe he runs off one in the film.

Creationists' deliberate misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution doesn't excuse biologists' ignorance (deliberate and willful or otherwise) of probability and the apparent equivocation in which both creationists and biologists engage when discussing randomness and evolution.

Agreed. But, I don't think professional biologists are prone to be ignorant of probability nor are they prone to use equivocation. Perhaps my problems is that I am not a professional.

I any case, do you agree or not that it is disingenuous for someone to criticize the Theory of Evolution, as relying on random chance?

As for ridicule, well, buck up whiners. A lot of people think your beliefs are goofy.

To that I would add: "Yeah, quit yer belly-achin' and show us some empirical evidence!!!"

As far as life being the result of accidental random chance, that is what the evidence shows.

Have you read any modern books on Evolution, and/or self-organizing systems? The evidence is tantalizing that life was practically inevitable to spring up, somewhere!

Some patterns, once they appear, are stable, and so if they come about by random chance are likely to persist. Others are unstable, and likely to disappear. This process is true even for life itself. In biology, we call this "natural selection". and the understanding of this phenomenon is necessary to understand how complex life can arise without the need for design.

That is one way to put it. But, that kinda seems to contradict the notion that life is the result of accidental random chance. If a stable pattern is capable of emerging, that makes the accident all the more likely to happen.

 

[jimbob]

Wowbagger, this is where I think we have to clarify ethe meanings.

Firstly I'd say that evolution the creationist argument pretends that any mentioning of the word "random" means "flat-out-never-can-tell (never can achieve even 1% accuracy).", or "haphazard", and evoloution is not that. Should they claim stupidity, "Oh, I can't understand the difference - maybe there isn't one", firstly you are not going to convince them even if you had a time machine and ould follow back to the primeval ooze, and secondly you could try pointing out various different games of chance often rely on non-uniform odds - see the rolling dice example...


Another point, and this I do find slightly surprising, because so much of the work in probability and statistics was developed by biologists, but it seems as if there is a cultural divide, depending on peoples scientific background. People with a physical-science background seem perfectly happy that you can have probabilities, quantify them, and still make useful predictions. It seems that many biologists use the same maths, and use the terms in an similar manner, in technical writing, but use a different term in talking to the public.

The phrase, "almost inevitable" to me screams probability. I'd also say that it describes many evolutionary "results". Flight and sight for example.

Randomness allows "choices" to be made without intelligence. IIRC, there are theories that say the entire structure of the universe, (locations of galaxies and preponderence of matter over antimatter) could be explained by random fluctuations in the uniformity of the rapidly expanding universe. Can a singularity be anything other than uniform*? If not how does tjhe universe have any structure?



*A sincere question for someone with better physich knowledge than me...

 

[Meadmaker]

Have you read any modern books on Evolution, and/or self-organizing systems? The evidence is tantalizing that life was practically inevitable to spring up, somewhere!

Yes. I've read a few books and lots of papers on evolution. As a grad student, I spent plenty of time with neural networks, genetic algorithms, artificial life, and related topics. I'm quite familiar with self organizing systems.

The fact that an accident was very likely to occur somewhere does not mean it wasn't an accident. Sooner or later, someone will hit the lottery. When it happens, it will be the result of random chance.

Scientists today do not know if life was extremely likely to occur, or whether it was highly unlikely to occur, and we just got lucky. However, that doesn't really matter to this discussion. It was the result of random chance either way. We just don't know what the probabilities are.

There's a lot of talk about "what creationists believe" or "what creationists mean when they say...". In my experience, there's a lot of variation in what they mean, and there's no point in trying to refute an argument from some hypothetical, generic, creationist. Such things don't exist in the real world.

What Ben Stein said, and meant, was that the theory of evolution says that life evolved without purpose and without design. It's just a coincidence that we are here, and we could easily have not been here. He's right. That's exactly what the theory says.*

*ETA: For clarification, that's a small, tiny, part of what the theory says.

 

[tsg]

They can desire anything they want. If they want to defeat Evolution, they should learn to "know thy enemy".

I don't disagree, but it doesn't address the problem. They don't want to believe evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Even if you can get them to understand the role chance plays, it won't change the underlying motivation for trying to find something wrong with it even if they have to make it up. It also doesn't address those who do understand it and are deliberately misrepresenting it to further their agenda.

"Biology" can clearly state in terms that a four-year-old can understand on billboards thirty feet high on every major highway in the world what it means by "random" and the role it plays in evolution and it won't change a thing.

 

[Wowbagger]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.
It would seems as though theology* should be on that list as well.

(* Editor's Note: I know theology is not a science, but it might be interesting to see how creationists react to the statement.)

It is not useful, nor is it a proper criticism, to describe the Theory of Evolution as "random chance", because, like other sciences, it does not set out to rely on random chance, but to develop predictions, and test theories.​

I know it is probably not perfect, yet. This type of statement might turn some religious off of science, completely. But, at least it might be driven into their heads what the game is.

Any feedback would be appreciated!!

(I will respond to the other new posts, in here, later.)

 

[Walter Wayne]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.
It would seems as though theology* should be on that list as well.​

...

That only applies if one believes that quantum fluctuations have a small influence on evolution. Sure, the pressure a gas exerts on its container is technically random. But if you apply the classical equation PV=nRT and then measure the physical system you will find that the result consistent, plus or minus an itty-itty bit. I would say that it is "technically" random but with such little variation that the randomness is inconsiquential to almost anything we do.

This is in contrast to evolution, in which the mutation that happens, and the timing of that mutation can affect the path the evolution of an organism takes. And the path that organism takes can change the environment for the organisms around it.

The end result is that in complex systems, seemingly insignificant quantum fluctuations can have a significant effect on the progress of the system.

Walt

 

[Meadmaker]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.
It would seems as though theology* should be on that list as well.

(* Editor's Note: I know theology is not a science, but it might be interesting to see how creationists react to the statement.)

It is not useful, nor is it a proper criticism, to describe the Theory of Evolution as "random chance", because, like other sciences, it does not set out to rely on random chance, but to develop predictions, and test theories.​

I know it is probably not perfect, yet. This type of statement might turn some religious off of science, completely. But, at least it might be driven into their heads what the game is.

Any feedback would be appreciated!!

(I will respond to the other new posts, in here, later.)

I would definitely eliminate the theology response. It just doesn't belong. It reveals that you are interested in talking philosophy, not science.

Other than that, it's a good response, although I think it might be a good response for reasons other than what you are thinking.

What it does is acknowledge that the randomness really is there, and say, "So what?" Of course, that's the real bugaboo to the creationist. They don't like the "So what?" part. They want to be part of a grand plan by the architect of the universe, and the suggestion that our existence could be just a coincidence really frosts them.

(I just had an image of God sitting up in the heavens and saying, "Hmmm. That's funny. It looks like something weird is going on over in that one galaxy over in quadrant IV. I'm kinda busy this weekend. Son, could you take a look at that one for me?" It just doesn't have quite the same ring as "And he saw that it was good.")

 

[mijopaalmc]

That only applies if one believes that quantum fluctuations have a small influence on evolution. Sure, the pressure a gas exerts on its container is technically random. But if you apply the classical equation PV=nRT and then measure the physical system you will find that the result consistent, plus or minus an itty-itty bit. I would say that it is "technically" random but with such little variation that the randomness is inconsiquential to almost anything we do.

This is in contrast to evolution, in which the mutation that happens, and the timing of that mutation can affect the path the evolution of an organism takes. And the path that organism takes can change the environment for the organisms around it.

The end result is that in complex systems, seemingly insignificant quantum fluctuations can have a significant effect on the progress of the system.

Walt

Seconded.

The thing about evolution by natural selection is that it doesn't work at all without the initial variation, which is by definition governed by "random quantum fluctuations".

 

[fls]

I'm not so sure about that. Probability distributions can be insensitive to assumptions about the details - for example, they can emerge from components that are deterministic, such as a coin toss. So the existence of variation does not necessarily mean that the underlying atoms vary.

Linda

 

[sol invictus]

Here is another possible response I thought of:

Since quantum fluctuations have a small influence on every as aspect of science, it is unfair to single out the Theory of Evolution as relying on random chance. If you do that, you would also have to say that meteorology, astronomy, geology, physics, medical research, economics, etc. also all rely on random chance.
It would seems as though theology* should be on that list as well.

(* Editor's Note: I know theology is not a science, but it might be interesting to see how creationists react to the statement.)

It is not useful, nor is it a proper criticism, to describe the Theory of Evolution as "random chance", because, like other sciences, it does not set out to rely on random chance, but to develop predictions, and test theories.​

Looks pretty good. I agree with Mead that you'd be better off removing the crack about theology.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm not so sure about that. Probability distributions can be insensitive to assumptions about the details - for example, they can emerge from components that are deterministic, such as a coin toss. So the existence of variation does not necessarily mean that the underlying atoms vary.

Linda

Except, to the best our knowledge, quantum mechanical events are random no matter how you try to constrain the variables. While it is mathematically true that a function of a random variable is itself a random variable*, it is not very useful in describing real world physical processes, because every actual physical process is based on quantum mechanics. However, it still important to make a distinction between non-chaotic deterministic systems (i.e., roughly systems in which small variations in initial conditions lead to small variations in final conditions) and chaotic deterministic systems (i.e., roughly systems in which small variations in initial conditions lead to large variations in final conditions). Evolution is most likely the latter because it takes place in a in an environment that is dependent on other chaotic systems (e.g., climate and weather). This means that exact predictions cannot be made about specific elements of adaptation, whereas predictions about the general course of adaptation can be made and are best handled in a probabilistic/statistical framework.

*meaning that random mutation based on probability leads to random evolution by natural selection regardless of whether natural selection itself is random or deterministic

 

[sol invictus]

Except, to the best our knowledge, quantum mechanical events are random no matter how you try to constrain the variables. While it is mathematically true that a function of a random variable is itself a random variable*, it is not very useful in describing real world physical processes, because every actual physical process is based on quantum mechanics. However, it still important to make a distinction between non-chaotic deterministic systems (i.e., roughly systems in which small variations in initial conditions lead to small variations in final conditions) and chaotic deterministic systems (i.e., roughly systems in which small variations in initial conditions lead to large variations in final conditions). Evolution is most likely the latter because it takes place in a in an environment that is dependent on other chaotic systems (e.g., climate and weather). This means that exact predictions cannot be made about specific elements of adaptation, whereas predictions about the general course of adaptation can be made and are best handled in a probabilistic/statistical framework.

I couldn't have said it better myself...