Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

[Dancing David]

So in other words you don't have any to pony up, it was just assertion without evidence.

Enjoy

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030175

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/neanderthal.html

Okay so we have a possible ( and somehwhat likely, until we have many more samples) divergence of homo sap neanderthalis from homosap sapiens at ~600,000-500,000 BCE. That is not truelly a huge amount of time (especialy since Lucy is what 3,000,000 MYA), so I am not sure what the point would be, especially if homo sapiens sapiens is from a very limited gene pool to begin with.

Your quote

Supply me the evidence that Neanderthal is a branch of human evolution rather than a parallel evolution of homo and I will

Still makes no sense, a branch is a branch, we are great apes, homo sap N and homo sap S are great apes, we are branches of the same shrub, we diverged from a proto critter that also was the proto critter for chimps.

I would be more interested if the homo sap N showed the 'missing chromosone'.

and this still has nothing to do with you statement

maybe he thought he was special in some way before we kinda wiped him out

Did humans wipe out the red wolf and then coyotes moved in? Or did the coyotes wipe out the red wolf?

You are avoiding the issue, what evidence is there that humans (homo sapiens sapiens) had anything 'kinda wiped out' homo sapiens neanderthalis?

 

[Meadmaker]

Does this count?

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

From
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

Yes. That counts. It is an example of how a creationist web site discusses evolution.

And what's wrong with it? Not much, actually. It's almost perfectly accurate. It does assert that evolution is "unpredictable". That is slightly wrong. There are certain predictions that can be made, although they are pretty vague. You can predict, "those organisms that are more fit for their environment are likely to survive." However, you can't predict whether a given species will develop, or whether a given species will survive.

With respect to randomness, that assertion of unpredictability might be suggesting that any outcome is possible. That would be wrong. On the other hand, that might be a projection. All that they really are saying is that it is "unpredictable", which might mean a specific outcome cannot be predicted.

If I roll a die, I can predict that the outcome will be in a set of integers from 1 to 6. If I roll two dice, I can predict that the sum will be in the set of integers from 2 to 12, with some outcomes more likely than others. So, are dice rolls predictable, or unpredictable? We could go on for pages arguing the answer.

In other words, their description might not be the best, but it's basically accurate.

 

[Meadmaker]

A NYT article describing an experiment in which 12 flasks of bacteria all evolved in the same way given the same simulus, thus demonstrating that evolution is deterministic at least sometimes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905e0d71039f932a25752c1a9659c8b63

Cool. I actually found the sunflower reference more interesting. Not what I would have expected.

 

[Taffer]

Taffer!

BTW, thank you very much, you have enlightened me in correct thinking again.

You're welcome. It is a facinating subject.

 

[Belz...]

You are choosing to redefine the words "random" and "deterministic" to preclude evolution from being random, cyborg.

Actually, there's no way around it, because your definition of "random" includes everything. It's a pity you can't see that about your own words.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Very good evidence that you don't understand what we're talking about.

 

[MG1962]

I would be more interested if the homo sap N showed the 'missing chromosone'.

and this still has nothing to do with you statement



Did humans wipe out the red wolf and then coyotes moved in? Or did the coyotes wipe out the red wolf?

You are avoiding the issue, what evidence is there that humans (homo sapiens sapiens) had anything 'kinda wiped out' homo sapiens neanderthalis?

You defeat your own argument. If, as I claim, we aree both branches of the great ape, then Netherthal should not be insulted with the name sapien. And you will get your wish later this year when the genome project for Neanderthal is completed.

I am not particularly worried about the cyotes and red wolfs. There are a number of theories around the end of Neanderthal involving their unsuccessful encounters with humans. There are other theories to explain why they hung on in some place far longer than most of Europe.

 

[Dancing David]

Hi MG 1962,

And what evidence is there that the neanderthals were involved in 'unsuccessful encounters with humans' ? Theories are great, data is better. That way hypothesis goes to theory.
It could be the the neaderthals were wiped out after an unsucessful encounter with the Underwear Gnomes, without data it is hypothesis.

I am not sure what point you think you scored and what I am defeating myself with, yet my main thrust was that you have not stated why we should conclude that neaderthals were in fights with the homo sap sap.

You aren't going to tell me about altars to cave bears are you?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Actually, there's no way around it, because your definition of "random" includes everything. It's a pity you can't see that about your own words.

Actually, it is a pity that you can't that you are just parroting a straw man devised by people who are working very hard to misunderstand what I am saying.

The idea here is that, even though our measurements are inherently imprecise (which yields a probability distribution for the initial), the process is still deterministic if each value in the probability distribution yields one, and only one, outcome.

Very good evidence that you don't understand what we're talking about.

Again, I understand and even agree that, by the definitions provided, evolution by natural selection is non-random; I just don't see the definitions being consistent with how biologists seem to implicitly understand the concept of randomness, especially when they use statistical hypothesis testing.

 

[jimbob]

I think that as wowbagger stated, it depends on the level of significance.

If identical starting conditions can produce significantly different outrcomes, then I would say that the random nature is important.

I woud say that (certainly to us, and indeed the entire ecosystem c.f. the passenger pigeon) whether anything evolved to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans *is* significant.

The entire "shape" of the ecosystem would be different without something occupying the niche of a fire-using social animal.

In other words, as far as I am concerned, if it was inevitable that there would be something occupying the ecological niche of "a fire-using social animal", then that could be considered nonrandom. I would contend that there was nothing inevitible about that until pretty recently.

I am basing this on the fact that the vast majority of organisms fail to reproduce, yet most are also pretty similar to thier parent(s). To me this means that the odds are against any particular (even beneficial) mutation surviving. If there is a random element to natural selection (I would contend that the weather is) then I would argue that humanity wasn't inevitable. As the world seemed to have got along with large placental mammals, but not humans for tens of millions of years, I would argue that the timing (at least) of human-like animals evolving was not inevitable. I would also argue that there was nothing inevitable about the eventual evolution of human-like animals.


Here is a similar NY times article, with a slightly different set of outcomes to the earlier (interesting) one:

a similar NY times article

Dr. Bennett was particularly curious about how organisms adapt to different temperatures. He wondered if adapting to low temperatures meant organisms would fare worse at higher ones, a long-standing question. Working with Dr. Lenski, Dr. Bennett allowed 24 lines of E. coli to adapt to a relatively chilly 68 degrees for 2,000 generations. They then measured how quickly these cold-adapted microbes reproduced at a simmering 104 degrees.

Two-thirds of the lines did worse at high temperatures than their ancestors, experiencing the expected trade-off. “If you’re a betting person, that’s the way you’d better bet,” Dr. Bennett said. But the pattern was not universal. The bacteria that reproduced fastest in the cold did not do the worst job of breeding in the heat. A third of the cold-adapted lines did as well or better in the heat than the ancestor. Dr. Bennett and Dr. Lenski published their latest findings last month in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

All were cold-adapted, but some were also warm-adapted, and some weren't.

There is a lot about evolution that is predictible, but there is also a lot that isn't, but which can still be explained as one of several "options".

 

[MG1962]

Hi MG 1962,

And what evidence is there that the neanderthals were involved in 'unsuccessful encounters with humans' ? Theories are great, data is better. That way hypothesis goes to theory.
It could be the the neaderthals were wiped out after an unsucessful encounter with the Underwear Gnomes, without data it is hypothesis.

I am not sure what point you think you scored and what I am defeating myself with, yet my main thrust was that you have not stated why we should conclude that neaderthals were in fights with the homo sap sap.

You aren't going to tell me about altars to cave bears are you?

Do you agree there is anthropological evidence that Neanderthal and human inhabition overlapped in Europe?

 

[Belz...]

So is P(pair of jacks|jack of spades) not random?

Well, it's deterministic. You just don't know all the factors involved.

 

[Dancing David]

Do you agree there is anthropological evidence that Neanderthal and human inhabition overlapped in Europe?

Evasion noted, while chimps kill small animals, I don't recall that they and the other apes wipe each other out. Whatever, modern society can engage in efficient warfare.

Pony up your evidence for hs sapiens 'wiping out' hs neandethalis. Large piles of neanderthal skeletons with stone tool wounds? Stone arches with 'Arbeit macht frei' written on them? (Sorry that is undue sarcasm)

And then tell me about how homo sapiens sapiens wiped out the large mega fauna in north america while you are at it.

 

[Belz...]

Actually, it is a pity that you can't that you are just parroting a straw man devised by people who are working very hard to misunderstand what I am saying.

I'm not parroting anything. I remember your post about what you consider random and just like everybody else, except you, I understand its implications.

The idea here is that, even though our measurements are inherently imprecise (which yields a probability distribution for the initial), the process is still deterministic if each value in the probability distribution yields one, and only one, outcome.

And how does that make evolution random ?

 

[Taffer]

Again, I understand and even agree that, by the definitions provided, evolution by natural selection is non-random; I just don't see the definitions being consistent with how biologists seem to implicitly understand the concept of randomness, especially when they use statistical hypothesis testing.

Then you do not understand those tests. All the statistical tests I dealt with were tests against a null hypothesis of a completely random distribution. That is to say, one with all variables being equiprobably. This is to show that a particular population is under selective pressures.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Then you do not understand those tests. All the statistical tests I dealt with were tests against a null hypothesis of a completely random distribution. That is to say, one with all variables being equiprobably. This is to show that a particular population is under selective pressures.

Actually, it is you who clearly doesn't understand the very tests you performed. Yes, your data was derived from a random (i.e., equiprobable) sample, but that actual data points were most probably not uniformly distributed. To test a hypothesis, you then probably assumed (at least if you were performing a parametric test such as the z-test, t-test, or chi-squared-test) that the data took on a certain distribution and then compared that distribution to determine the probability that the means of the distributions were different purely due to the variations with within the sample.

As mentioned before, such a schema requires a much wider understanding of what "random" means than just "equiprobable", as each data point is considered to be a random variable that is described by a non-uniform probability distribution.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well, it's deterministic. You just don't know all the factors involved.

You clearly don't understand probability if you think that.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm not parroting anything. I remember your post about what you consider random and just like everybody else, except you, I understand its implications.

Yes, you are parroting others. You simply repeated the old canard that my definition "makes everything random". This show that you, like articulett, cyborg, and sol invictus, clearly don't understand probability theory.

And how does that make evolution random ?

I'm not claiming that evolution is necessarily random by the definition I provided; I'm claiming that people haven't presented any compelling evidence that it is deterministic random by the definition I provided.

 

[sol invictus]

This show that you, like articulett, cyborg, and sol invictus, clearly don't understand probability theory.

I'm not claiming that evolution is necessarily random by the definition I provided; I'm claiming that people haven't presented any compelling evidence that it is deterministic random by the definition I provided.

Yes, mijo, it is obvious that everyone else is wrong and only you understand probability.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, mijo, it is obvious that everyone else is wrong and only you understand probability.

Would you say that someone who says that 1+1=3 understands arithmetic?

You and the bulk of those who argue that evolution is non-random make similar fundamental mistakes about probability theory (viz., articulett's argument that algebra is random by the definition I gave).

By the way, I never that I was the only one who understood probability. It is possible for, articulett, Belz..., cyborg, and you, to not understand probability and for other to disagree with me to understand it. I have judged you lack of understanding on the things that you have said, not the fact that you disagree with me.