Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

[cyborg]

If it does, then evolution by natural selection is deterministic.

If it doesn't, then evolution by natural selection is random.

Counterpoint - are all the reasons why one instance of a phenotype may be in one group and not the other necessarialy arbitrary?

If not then your version of natural selection is too simplistic.

 

[Belz...]

Uh....mutation, which provides the variation for the process of evolution observed here on the planet Earth, is a quantum mechanical phenomenon

Er... no.

 

[zosima]

ETA:
I'll explain the rest of my point later, but interactions between organisms whilst being hard to model in their completeness, do show chaotic behaviour, indeed we made a simple model of one type in our physics lectures when I was at university.

In the new environment, the "interactions" landscape is fairly flat, so, just as a river's drainiage system and its initial course is chotic, and thus significantly affected by quantum events, so the interactions between the emerging (and initially less-well adapted) organisms is going to be too.

Actually the article you linked to says that we don't understand lemming population fluctuation. But it seems to suggest scientists are making progress in understanding it. I'm not sure what is chaotic about that.

Beyond that I think I'm pretty much done with this discussion. Your answer to my question is that "some systems are chaotic and thus necessarily are influenced by quantum mechanical randomness". This is just a huge fallacy. First, there is a huge difference between a chaotic system and a random one. Second, being a chaotic system doesn't mean it is affected by quantum mechanics. Chaotic systems are sensitive to initial conditions, but sensitive doesn't necessarily imply quantum sensitive. Third, quantum effects are really only important in sciences with the word quantum in the name, like quantum physics and quantum chemistry. Other systems work on a high enough level that quantum effects smooth out, so that while the systems are complex, they are not random. In fact they are incredibly reliable.

I think there have been several posts including some of my own that show why quantum physics is not an appreciable effect in evolution or in most natural sciences, I'm not going to repeat my reasoning here.

So now that I'm clear that this whole "evolution is random" argument boils down to "there exists a science called quantum physics" I'm pretty sure there's no reason to continue, jimbo.


@Cyborg,Belz,David Please, don't let Mijo resurrect himself by allowing him to completely ignore the argument he just lost and start a new one with you guys. If you want to continue arguing with him I would recommend you mock him with some of the silly things he's said in previous posts.

For example:
"The orderly operation of a smoke detector is not non-random" and "The actual functioning of a smoke detector is not random"
"Any event that has strictly more than one possible outcome is random"
"An outcome from a finite set of outcomes with 0 probability is random"
"Ballistics is not random, but a dart board is random"
"Everything is random"
"I've determined that people publish papers on statistics, thus evolution is random"
"If you used something other Americum-241 in a smoke detector it wouldn't work, thus evolution is random"
"Scientists use random variables to do statistics, thus whatever they're studying must be a random process. Look they both have random in the name, thus evolution is random."
Lets not forget that he doesn't know the difference between a finite set, an infinite set and, an uncountably infinite set.

Well thats a start, I catch one of these approximately every 2 Mijo posts. I think my favorites are the non-sequitur examples. I think I like those even better than the complete contradictions.

 

[jimbob]

This is just a huge fallacy. First, there is a huge difference between a chaotic system and a random one. Second, being a chaotic system doesn't mean it is affected by quantum mechanics. Chaotic systems are sensitive to initial conditions, but sensitive doesn't necessarily imply quantum sensitive.

I was under the impression it is still the current understanding that chaotic systems are sensitive at this level. It was when I was at university. IIRC, Sol Invictus, whose physics is probably more current than mine agreed...

ETA:


Here:

Yes, that is still the understanding, and that alone makes your definition (and mijo's) not very useful.

But actually (as I keep trying to explain) quantum randomness is pretty much a red herring in this discussion. Even if it didn't exist and the system was classically deterministic at the level of microscopic interactions, the presence of chaos makes it totally unpredictable. You can never measure the initial conditions with perfect accuracy even in a world without QM, and if the system is chaotic the uncertainty will grow exponentially (that's the definition of chaos), meaning - as in my example of the red gas molecule - you have no information at all after a relatively short time.

I would argue that it does make a philosophical difference.

The difference between being unpredictible but pre-determined, and random, i.e. not predetermined.

I would argue that, due to the nonlinear amplification of quantum uncertainties, chaotic systems are random over long enough timescales.

The smoke detector behaviour is not chaotic, so events can be averaged out with large numbers.

 

[Belz...]

@Cyborg,Belz,David Please, don't let Mijo resurrect himself by allowing him to completely ignore the argument he just lost and start a new one with you guys. If you want to continue arguing with him I would recommend you mock him with some of the silly things he's said in previous posts.

I'll do more than let him get away with it. I'll ignore his contributions from now on. He has no understanding of the subject at hand and shows no willingness to improve said understanding. What's the point of wasting energy on someone like that ?

 

[Wowbagger]

To play Devil's Advocate, a little bit: The smoke detector thing might not be a contradiction.

I could call Evolution "random" in one post, then "non-random" in another, but they would not contradict, if I used different meanings of the word in each post.

Granted, this is dishonest and/or confusing: One should try to remain consistent with their usage of terminology. But, it would still be valid, in a minimal manner.

Perhaps if Mijo started clarifying his statements better, we can sort this kind of stuff out.

 

[mijopaalmc]

To play Devil's Advocate, a little bit: The smoke detector thing might not be a contradiction.

I could call Evolution "random" in one post, then "non-random" in another, but they would not contradict, if I used different meanings of the word in each post.

Granted, this is dishonest and/or confusing: One should try to remain consistent with their usage of terminology. But, it would still be valid, in a minimal manner.

Perhaps if Mijo started clarifying his statements better, we can sort this kind of stuff out.

You know, I have said this before and I will say it again:

Since randomness and non-randomness both lead to orderly behaviors, orderliness is neither inherently random nor inherently nonrandom. Observation of orderly behavior in a physical system supports neither the hypothesis that the system is random nor the hypothesis that the system is non-random. Thus, it is not dishonest to say that the functioning of an ionization smoke is neither random nor non-random, because it is the orderly result of many random processes.

 

[zosima]

You know, I have said this before and I will say it again:

Since randomness and non-randomness both lead to orderly behaviors, orderliness is neither inherently random nor inherently nonrandom. Observation of orderly behavior in a physical system supports neither the hypothesis that the system is random nor the hypothesis that the system is non-random. Thus, it is not dishonest to say that the functioning of an ionization smoke is neither random nor non-random, because it is the orderly result of many random processes.

Non-random means not-random. Something cannot be random and not random at the same time. Thus your statement defines a contradiction.

You might try to argue something is both not-random and not-deterministic. This would be a fair position to take wrt evolution. But, of course, this would imply you concede that evolution is not random.

@Jimbo, how does posting a quote of Sol disagreeing with you support your contention? He says:
1. Quantum mechanics is a red herring(ie distracting irrelevant)
2. Chaotic systems are completely unpredictable without quantum mechanics. (ie quantum mechanics is not generally relevant to the discussion of chaotic systems)

Some things he doesn't say:
1. Quantum mechanics matters to anything in evolution.
2. Quantum mechanics is important to the description macroscopic systems.
3. Macroscopic chaotic systems are sensitive to quantum mechanical effects.

There is a philosophical difference about whether quantum mechanics is fundamentally random but it is irrelevant to evolution. You've made it apparent that quantum mechanics is the lynchpin of your "evolution is random" position. So this is over. Even your sources agree.

 

[Dancing David]

Mijo,

Is mutation the only way that a genome can express traits that are subject to natural selection?

 

[articulett]

What the **** is your obsession with quantum events all about? Seriously.

Ooh... I know the answer... pick me, pick me...

since quantum events are random, by semantic extrapolation anything that involves any quantum even (including all matter) is "random"... since (per their loose definition of random) all things that have random components ARE themelves random...

They don't want to be clear--they want to believe that scientists are saying evolutions is random. No scientist is saying this, of course... but they will only interpret the words that leads them to conclude that they are.

Come on, I want kudos-- I called this game over a year ago. They are creationists--or at least apologists--and they NEED to believe that scientists think evolution is "random" (whatever the hell that means) just like Kleinman needed to believe that the mathematics don't support evolution. All "cdesign propentists" have the little thing they need to be true to support their belief. Mijo and Jimbob need evolution to be "random". All their conversations must lead back to evolution being random--or, at least, "not non-random". Obfuscation beats clarity for a creationist. Understanding and conveying natural selection makes the invisible creator a less credible alternate "hypothesis". They don't want to be "clear"--they want evolution to be "random".

 

[jimbob]

@Jimbo, how does posting a quote of Sol disagreeing with you support your contention? He says:
1. Quantum mechanics is a red herring(ie distracting irrelevant)
2. Chaotic systems are completely unpredictable without quantum mechanics. (ie quantum mechanics is not generally relevant to the discussion of chaotic systems)

Some things he doesn't say:
1. Quantum mechanics matters to anything in evolution.
2. Quantum mechanics is important to the description macroscopic systems.
3. Macroscopic chaotic systems are sensitive to quantum mechanical effects.

There is a philosophical difference about whether quantum mechanics is fundamentally random but it is irrelevant to evolution. You've made it apparent that quantum mechanics is the lynchpin of your "evolution is random" position. So this is over. Even your sources agree.

We do agree in the following part of the discussion:

I am slightly puzzled by your statement:

My bad - I missed your "significantly", which was rather crucial! In that case, while I still prefer my definition (predictable versus unpredictable, at least in the context of broad phenomena), I more or less agree

Context within spoiler

I am slightly puzzled by your statement:

Yes, that is still the understanding, and that alone makes your definition (and mijo's) not very useful.

If this defintion made everything "random", then I would agree with you, but it doesn't: the Earth's orbit, for example isn't significantly affected even by cometry impacts . (I would be interested to know if there is any assessment on the potential effect of the Mars-sized body that helped create the moon...)

This ultimately random aspect of chaotic systems would mean that a probabilistic treatment for natural selection isn't just a good model, but does fundamentally reflect what happens... Belz, for example had been arguing agianst that (IIRC). And Articulett refuses to acknowledge that natural selection can be anything other than "nonrandom". I suggested, "probabilistic but not haphazard", and was accused of being wishy-washy and unclear.

As has been said before, creationists like to pretend that evolution is haphazard, and that this is what scientists mean by random.

Chaotic systems are ultimately not only unpredictible, but random over long enough timescales.

Only nonlinear systems are significantly affected by quantum uncertainty. Linear systems are not. The smoke detector is a linear system.

If the behaviour of evolution was unpredictible but non-random, then it was inevitable at the emergence of life that our ecosystem would have developed as it is now (with only insignificant differences).

I doubt this, for the reasons I have given previously.

 

[Belz...]

Ooh... I know the answer... pick me, pick me...

since quantum events are random, by semantic extrapolation anything that involves any quantum even (including all matter) is "random"... since (per their loose definition of random) all things that have random components ARE themelves random...

Which fits quite nicely with Mijo's definition of "random", though he himself denies that.

 

[jimbob]

Belz, I am arguing that:

Systems at the quantum scale are random, (I think we agree on this)

Linear systems (e.g. smoke alarms) are non random, as quantum fluctuations are insignificant: (I think we agree on this too)

Nonlinear systems can be truly random because if they are significantly affected by ranom quantum events. (Even though Sol prefers a different wording, he agrees that this is the case for chaotic systems).

Note how this differs from what articulett claims I am saying.

This also answers cyborg's question as to why I am "obsessed" with quantum events.

To the best of our understanding about the universe, quantum events are random.


I would turn the question round:

Doesn't the statement that "evolution is non-random" imply that its course is inevitable, even if not predictable? In other words as soon as life emergerd it was inevitable that about 3.8 billion years later the ecosystem would look as it does now with only insignificant differences? Doesn't that also mean that in 100 or 1000 years from now the ecosystem is already determined with only insignificant differences?

I would have thought that when hominids discovered fire, spears, and many tools was random. The paleolithic lasted a long time. These inventions had a significant effect on the evolutionary course of many other organisms, not just hominids.

 

[cyborg]

This also answers cyborg's question as to why I am "obsessed" with quantum events.

No it doesn't - your obsession is clearly around demonstrating that, "homo sapiens may not necessarialy have evolved!", the explanation for which for some reason requires quantum mechanics(!?).

Doesn't the statement that "evolution is non-random" imply that its course is inevitable, even if not predictable?

Class. Instance. ****.

Maybe you'd like to answer the question about variation?

 

[jimbob]

what question?

If something is significantly affected by random events then it can be said to be significantly affected by random events and not nonrandom

 

[cyborg]

If something is significantly affected by random events then it can be said to be significantly affected by random events and not nonrandom

That sentence was too significnantly affected by random events to be meaningful. Sorry.

 

[jimbob]

OK: If something is significantly affected (i.e. its outcome is significantly altered) by random events then it can't be nonrandom.

 

[articulett]

The smoke detector, Jimbob...

 

[jimbob]

It isn't a nonlinear system, so

Linear systems (e.g. smoke alarms) are non random, as quantum fluctuations are insignificant: (I think we agree on this too)

 

[articulett]

I think quantum fluctuations are irrelevant to understanding evolution as well. They are only relevant if you have some weird need to describe evolution as random or to insist that it's "not nonrandom". I think you may be building a case for your argument in your head, but it really doesn't translate to anything meaningful or useful n writing.