Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

[Dancing David]

Not unless you can describe how natural selection guarantees survival to all individuals possessing one group of phenotypes while it denies to all individuals possessing another group of phenotypes.

That is to say, that you have predicated your question on the idea that I understand random to mean "unbiased". I do not accept your premise for the meaning of "random", so I reject the conclusion drawn therefrom.

Sorry Mijo, this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The survival of an individual is very chaotic.
The placement of individuals in a landscape is very very chaotic.
The intercation of individuals in the landscape is very very very chaotic.

Which traits might have potential to have a reporductive impact on an individual's rate of reproduction is very very very very chaotic.

The prediction of which traits will be in which individuals in which enviroment with which other players and how they might impact future reproductive success is not possible.

You seem to be in some word space that does not parse for me.

the enviroment does provide causal relationships, the biology of expression provides causal relationships, the interaction of the individual in the enviroment does provide causal relationships

the traits which an idividual has, the enviroment the individual finds itself in, the impact of expressed traits upon reproductive survival are all causal

which individual has which trait in which enviroment and how a change in enviroment impacts reproductive success is not predictable, it is chaotic, stochastic or random

we do not have a knowledge base that would allow for a meaningful differentiation

 

[Dancing David]

I think you're missing the point of the post. Evolution by natural selection is not deterministic unless phenotypes are divided in to the two mutually exclusive groups mentioned above.

By the way, you explanation is inherently probabilistic and therefore described evolution by natural selectionasa stochastic (or random) process.

fallacy of construction.

 

[sol invictus]

Here's a typical definition of "theory": "[a]n assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture".

By the logic you just displayed, evolution by natural selection is a conjecture or guess.

What?

So because scientists and others generally use one particular definition of random rather than another in the context of evolution, evolution is a guess.

Did you mention "logic", mijo? Maybe we should define that for you next?

Anyway you're obviously nothing but a troll, so I'm done with this discussion.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I can think of one process which is deterministic:

mijo saying evolution is a random process.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What?

So because scientists and others generally use one particular definition of random rather than another in the context of evolution, evolution is a guess.

You took a common definition of "random" and decided to use it in a technical context, so I demonstrated the absurdity of that approach by applying it to the word "theory".

Anyway you're obviously nothing but a troll, so I'm done with this discussion.

Funny, someone who points out a fundamental flaw in your argument is a troll?

 

[articulett]

I can think of one process which is deterministic:

mijo saying evolution is a random process.

Yep... no matter how vague and misleading the phrase may be... no matter how many times it's explained to him... Mijo thinks that evolution is random... and People like Dawkins, et. al. who disagree are just "wrong".

His definition of random, of course, is so broad as to make everything random including you, your breakfast, your dog, life, death, and all processes that are not mathematical abstractions. Anything that can be construed to have any randomness, IS random to Mijo. Moreover, his definition of random is "anything related to probability". He's covered all his bases and said nothing at all... just as he was doing a year ago when he started a thread on this very topic.

To get Mijo to enter a thread all you need to do is to say evolution is not random... (or to criticize creationists)--

Deterministic indeed.

 

[mijopaalmc]

His definition of random, of course, is so broad as to make everything random including you, your breakfast, your dog, life, death, and all processes that are not mathematical abstractions. Anything that can be construed to have any randomness, IS random to Mijo. Moreover, his definition of random is "anything related to probability". He's covered all his bases and said nothing at all... just as he was doing a year ago when he started a thread on this very topic.

Another patently false deliberate misstatement by articulett.

Does she ever stop lying?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not unless you can describe how natural selection guarantees survival to all individuals possessing one group of phenotypes while it denies to all individuals possessing another group of phenotypes.

That is to say, that you have predicated your question on the idea that I understand random to mean "unbiased". I do not accept your premise for the meaning of "random", so I reject the conclusion drawn therefrom.

Let me be perfectly clear. Unless everyone reject reality and substitute your own, you are unwilling to accept the simple, straight foreward statement that "mutations are random but evolution is not"?

 

[jimbob]

'Just to weigh-in on this thread... I want to know if jim-bob, walter wayne, or mijo ever make sense or cede a point. I have a feeling that they'll be arguing that it makes sense to call evolution "random" as long as they are forum members... and I have my strong suspicions as to why. Jimbob has his own weird definition that he thinks is fabu (random mutation and probabilistic selection which is almost as empty as mijo's bizarre insistence at calling selection "random" because it can be described in terms of probabilities before the fact...) And I never could figure out Walter Wayne. I've ended up putting them all on ignore figuring that someone would quote them if they said something intelligible... but so far, I'm not seeing any intelligence or comprehension... just their same old insistence that it makes sense somehow to describe evolution in the same manner that Behe describes it no matter how misleading or empty such a definition is.

You have to admire their tenacity, however,-- in fact, it reminds me Behe.

Wowbagger and Sol Invictus... mark my words... you are having a discussion with people who have a vested interest in not understanding. No progress will be made. It's not you... it's not your explanations; it's them. These guys were saying the exact same nothingness over a year ago on Mijo's "evolution is not nonrandom" thread"... truly... nothing has changed. Nothing.

The same could be said about articulett, and with more reason.

Mijo is probably a bit miffed that articulett keeps referring to him as a creationist. If she read what this thread was about, she might find the difference is aminly about semantics.

If she read my posts, she might find where I consider "nonrandom" to be appropriate, and whre I'd consider "random" to be appropriate.

One point that sems to have eluded her, is that a single instance of even a "beneficial" trait is likely to not survive beyond a single generation. As mutations start with individuals, this has consequences for how evolution works.

There are other subtleties that she misses too:

For example, creationists often claim that mutations are harmful. In a stable environment, that is quite likely to be the case, as reproducing organisms are likely to be well adaptred, so any change will be more likely to move them away from the "optimum" than towards it. If the environment has changed or is changing this is less probable. In other words, the rate of adaption to an envirmnment slows as the organisms are more adapted to this environment.

There is fossil evidence for this too.

 

[Earthborn]

So because scientists and others generally use one particular definition of random rather than another in the context of evolution, evolution is a guess.

No. The point is: because scientists use a particular definition of the word "random" in the context of evolution, evolution can be said to be random... even if the word "random" has a slightly different meaning to the general public.

 

[Taffer]

I am not arguing with your here but the genome is blind to the enviroment, so the expression of traits is deterministic, however the traits of beings in enviroments and which traits will be expressed is contingent and essentially random.

So the expression of traits is very deterministic in outcome, the availability of traits and which enviroments they will end up in and how they might have benefit to beings is essentially "lack of predicatbility and without systemic pattern", although the traits will be localized for some populations and so the potential expression of traits in an unknown enviroment might show some branching structures.

The genome is blind to the enviroment and as such the future expression of traits in a changing landscape might be characterised as random.

Not quite true. The genome exists in its own environment, and is subject to evolutionary pressures directly. To explain, many things about a genome are directly acted upon by selection (rather then selection acting upon phenotypes). Such things as methylation, gene sequence, genome folding and structure, introns/transposons, and even such thing as basepair ratio of genes, are all examples of things which selection acts upon directly. So while it is true that genes are not directly acted upon by the selective force of the "outside" environment, it isn't quite true that a genome has no direct selective pressure at all.

 

[Taffer]

Another patently false deliberate misstatement by articulett.

Does she ever stop lying?

I'm afraid she's right, mijo. The definition you are using makes any statement involving "random" useless.

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc
Another patently false deliberate misstatement by articulett.

Does she ever stop lying?

I'm afraid she's right, mijo. The definition you are using makes any statement involving "random" useless

Here is a question for mijo:

Do you only consider processes to be random if the randomness has a significant effect on the outcome?

An example:

Was it random when a V2 rocket hit London? No

Was it random whether it hit a particular house and not another? Essentially yes.

 

[sol invictus]

No. The point is: because scientists use a particular definition of the word "random" in the context of evolution, evolution can be said to be random... even if the word "random" has a slightly different meaning to the general public.

I am a scientist. I use the word "random" quite often in both technical and non-technical settings, and I have never used it in the sense mijo wants. Richard Dawkins is a scientist. When he says "evolution is not random", he too is not using the word the way mijo wants. There is a simple reason for that - the definition mijo likes is totally useless outside of a narrow and specific mathematical context, because every single physical process in the world is random according to it. The statement "evolution is random" is therefore misleading to the point of being simply false.

Some internet troll named mijo likes a particularly stupid definition of a term. That does not mean everybody else must use it that way. Nor does that set of facts imply anything at all about how scientists use the term "theory".

Do you really find that so difficult to grasp?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I am a scientist. I use the word "random" quite often in both technical and non-technical settings, and I have never used it in the sense mijo wants. Richard Dawkins is a scientist. When he says "evolution is not random", he too is not using the word the way mijo wants. There is a simple reason for that - the definition mijo likes is totally useless outside of a narrow and specific mathematical context, because every single physical process in the world is random according to it. The statement "evolution is random" is therefore misleading to the point of being simply false.

Some internet troll named mijo likes a particularly stupid definition of a term. That does not mean everybody else must use it that way. Nor does that set of facts imply anything at all about how scientists use the term "theory".

The problem here is that scientists and others who argue for evolution get all up in arms when creationists use the common definition of "theory" to imply that evolution is just a guess or when they use their owm ifiosuncratic definition of "transitional form" to declare that evolution has not produced any evidence of such, but have not problem using the common definition "random" to declare that evolution in non-random.

Why is it equivocation when a creationists do it but not when evolutionary biologists do it?

By the way I am not a troll; I am just heartily sick of the preponderance of shoddy reasoning on the part of those who claim evolution is non-random, and I find it interesting that when I point out that they are arguing like a creationist they deem me a troll.

 

[sol invictus]

The problem here is that scientists and others who argue for evolution get all up in arms when creationists use the common definition of "theory" to imply that evolution is just a guess or when they use their owm ifiosuncratic definition of "transitional form" to declare that evolution has not produced any evidence of such, but have not problem using the common definition "random" to declare that evolution in non-random.

What "common" definition of random, mijo? As usual you're not making any sense.

Last time we discussed this, I looked around and didn't find the definition you gave in ANY source, technical or not. (I found lots that agreed with me, though, including in a standard probability and statistics text.)

You are the one giving an idiosyncratic definition - because you are a troll.

 

[sol invictus]

Yet another example:

The expression "at random" will be used only with respect to an equiprobable space; formally, the expression "choose a point at random from a set S" shall mean that S is an equiprobable space where each point in S has the same probability.

By that definition (which coincides with every other definition I've found in both technical and popular sources), evolution is not random.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What "common" definition of random, mijo? As usual you're not making any sense.

Last time we discussed this, I looked around and didn't find the definition you gave in ANY source, technical or not. (I found lots that agreed with me, though, including in a standard probability and statistics text.)

You are the one giving an idiosyncratic definition - because you are a troll.

That's funny that you say you couldn't find any source for the definition I provided as The American Heritage Dictionary, The American Heritage Science Dictionary (both at dictionary.com), and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary all cite the definition I use. You also don't seem to have read very far in some of the hits you got on the define:random search, because you would have seen that Wikipedia (which is not an especially good source on its own), the UNESCO/IUBS/EUBIOS Bioethics Dictionary, the American Mathematical Society "Glossary of Meterology", and the Stereology Glossary all cite the definition I used.

You need to actually read the sources you provide.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yet another example:

The expression "at random" will be used only with respect to an equiprobable space; formally, the expression "choose a point at random from a set S" shall mean that S is an equiprobable space where each point in S has the same probability.

By that definition (which coincides with every other definition I've found in both technical and popular sources), evolution is not random.

Now you are equivocatong between the idomatic phrase "at random" and the word "random". Yes, "equiprobable" is an important definition of "random", but it is not the only one nor does it explain why the vast majority of probability distributions describe random variable.

You also seem to be ignoring that, even if each phenotype had the same probability of being selected (i.e., there was no natural selection at all), evolution would still occur simply by regression to the mean.

 

[articulett]

Yet another example:



By that definition (which coincides with every other definition I've found in both technical and popular sources), evolution is not random.

Moreover, I've provided peer reviewed data for him which said as much... but he still thinks he has some special right "technical" definition that only seems to be technical and right to him, Behe, and others of similar ilk.

I searched all sorts of sources to see if there was anyone actually using his definition in any peer reviewed paper.... but to no avail. There is no credible scientist who uses the word random to describe natural selection--the key component of evolution. The only "semi-scientist" who does so is Behe. Mijo wants "stochastic" to be a synonym for random and then he extrapolates so that anyone using stochastic in describing evolution is calling evolution random (per his loose definitiion of the term). But that's just a semantically twisted way of confirming to himself that it makes sense to say evolution is random. He claims not to be a creationist, and yet he seems inordinately stuck on getting himself and others to believe that it somehow makes sense to say, "evolution is random". The most you can get him to cede is that "evolution is not nonrandom"... really. I find it amusing.

I know you thought that if you were careful enough and kind enough and explained it in detail enough he would understand... but that is as unlikely as getting Behe to change is mischaracterization of the same from my experience. Mijo thinks he's smarter than you... and Dawkins... and everyone else who tells him that calling evolution random is "non-descriptive" at best-- misleading and identical to creationist obfuscation at worst. He does not care. His goal is to prove himself right in his head... like all self-appointed experts and true believers who preach here.