• 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.

Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

EagleEye said:
Ya know, I got through just over 1 page of this thread before I had to just stop reading for fear of losing my sanity for at least the next 30 minutes.

All of this "high talk" about randomness, "acausal" stuff, etc, etc... seriously... let's get to the root of the problem here, eh?

The single greatest logical disconnect for the anti-evolution crowd is that they think evolution is purported to be 100% random when it's not.
Click to expand...

Sorry to snip so much of your post, but I'm generally with you. Biology has, over the last 100 years become as hard a science as basic chemistry. Mixing chemical A with chemical B results in the production of chemical X is as fundamental as Being A having genetic markers 1 and Being B having genetic markers 1 demonstrating common ancestry. All this navel gazing BS, equivocation and semantics is an utter waste of time to me. The philosophical garbage about the randomnesss of mutations doesn't effect HOX genes, ERVs and the existance of transitional fossils.

If mijo wants to keep with the ID argument within an evolutionary context, I'd be fine with that, since it's more philosophy and interpretation than an unbiased evaluation of the evidence, but for me in light of all the other evidences we have like HOX, ERVs, fossils, etc. I'd be satisfied if he'd simply admit that "mutations are random, but evolution isn't".
 
Walter Wayne said:
We'd all still be bacteria without the random variation.

Walt
Click to expand...

The fact that variation is random has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection. Once again, it doesn't matter that variation is random, only that this variation exists in a population.
 
Dancing David said:
That is not debate, cease fire.

Take your nanny nanny boo boo outside.
Click to expand...

This is rich coming from some one who says things like:

Whoosh.

You missed the point, natural selection can occur without random mutation.
Click to expand...

By the way, evolution can occur without natural selection as well. If every individual have an equal chance of reproducing regardless of phenotype, the population will evolve by regression to the mean.
 
sol invictus said:
Take 10^23 molecules of gas in a sealed box with volume 1 cubic meter. Start them all moving to the left at 10 m/s, and color one of them red. Where will the red molecule be in an hour?

That system is deterministic and causal (if we ignore quantum mechanics, at least). And yet the question is impossible to answer by any (even hypothetical) means. So, we treat our ignorance the same way we treat fundamental acausality: we call the result random.
Click to expand...


I think I've worked it out.



In the box.



Right?
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
By the way, evolution can occur without natural selection as well. If every individual have an equal chance of reproducing regardless of phenotype, the population will evolve by regression to the mean.
Click to expand...


The statement "population will evolve by regression to the mean" is wrong. I suggest that you read the "regression to the mean" Wikipedia article and note that this statistical concept depends on picking subsets of the population.
 
The statement "population will evolve by regression to the mean" is wrong. I suggest that you read the "regression to the mean" Wikipedia article and note that this statistical concept depends on picking subsets of the population.
Click to expand...

I.e. it is incompatible with the notion of their being no natural selection.
 
mijopaalmc said:
No, it is not. It happens regardless of whether there is any bias toward a given phenotype.
Click to expand...

Natural selection does not entail any particular bias toward any given phenotype.
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
No it isn't. This demonstrates your lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

Actually, it shows your lack of reading comprehension numerous posters and resources have said that evolution is non-random because it is biased toward better adapted phenotypes.
 
Actually, it shows your lack of reading comprehension numerous posters and resources have said that evolution is non-random because it is biased toward better adapted phenotypes.
Click to expand...

This statement also demonstrates your lack of careful reading.
 
cyborg said:
This statement also demonstrates your lack of careful reading.
Click to expand...

Assertions, assertions, assertions. All I see is assertions from cyborg.

Why don't you google natural selection and seen how it's explained, cyborg?
 
Good day, Mijo. I just wanted to tell you that I recently acquired Michael Shermer's book "Why Darwin matters" and I think you should take a look at it. Even though I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with either "side", I was wondering exactly what do they mean by "Evolution is not random". Well, Dr Shermer's book explains it step by step using very basic reasonable arguments. I suggest you read the book and I'm sure it will be helpful as well.
 
mijopaalmc said:
This is rich coming from some one who says things like:
Click to expand...
Cease fire; debate points, no need for character assaults, even when they are thrown at you.
By the way, evolution can occur without natural selection as well. If every individual have an equal chance of reproducing regardless of phenotype, the population will evolve by regression to the mean.
Click to expand...


I have to think about the regression to the mean.

Is this a population where all individuals have the same chance of reproduction? You say equal chance, but i wanted to clarify, equal chance of reproduction? And no other selective pressure? So like a cage of mice where each one is randomly matched to a mate at breeding time, they are fed equally and social pressure is kept to a minimum?
 
mijopaalmc said:
By the way, evolution can occur without natural selection as well. If every individual have an equal chance of reproducing regardless of phenotype, the population will evolve by regression to the mean.
Click to expand...

Um, no mijo.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Actually, it shows your lack of reading comprehension numerous posters and resources have said that evolution is non-random because it is biased toward better adapted phenotypes.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the key word there is 'adapted', but really fitness of a phenotype to an enviroment is secondary, all that matters is ability to reproduce, so fit enough to reproduce is all that is required.

It is the interaction of the expressed traits and the enviroment, not just a 'phenotype', and how they impact reproduction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom