• 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

It sounds like Herzblut and Mijo are in agreement... that's a troll quorum, isn't it.

On planet smart people "random processes" are terms sometimes used to describe stochastic processes... the smart people don't consider the processes themselves random... they are noting that they have random components. Similarly, algebraic problems can be called variable problems because they contain variables. The smart people realize that it would be silly to presume that it means the problems are variable.

tsk.

You guys are made for each other... do run off and play now so the grown ups can talk.
 
articulett said:
On planet smart people "random processes" are terms sometimes used to describe stochastic processes... the smart people don't consider the processes themselves random... they are noting that they have random components.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a source that defines a stochastic process as you do?
 
sol invictus said:
All quantum systems have periodic orbits (start in an energy eigenstate). So does rule 30 - start with all zeros, or in many other configurations.

http://www.iwriteiam.nl/Rule30.html
Click to expand...

I'm not sure repeated digits count as a periodic orbit. I guess it depends on what definition of periodic orbit you use.

On the other hand, if you interpret the central column of rule 30 as a binary number, the number will never repeat. That said, I have no doubt that a sub-sequence of its digits will repeat.

Random numbers will have repeated digit sequences as well. In fact, I'm pretty sure* an infinite sequence of random digits should contain all possible finite subs-sequences of digits.

*I haven't proven this, if you have a reason to disagree I'd be genuinely interested in understanding why.

I agree with your claims about QM.

ETA: Is there a finite non-zero starting point on a plane of unlimited width that will cause rule 30 to repeat indefinitely? I think the examples you link only work if they are repeated to fill the entire plane.
 
Last edited:
zosima-

Aren't you talking about rule 30 with a specific initial condition (i.e., one black square and all others white)?
 
jimbob said:
Articulett, I understand your point about random components. However my contention is that there was nothing inevitable about the course of evolution, it was significantly affected (i.e. altered) by chance events, and that if you "reran the tape of evolution" you would be likely to get significantly different ecosystems and have a significantly different course of evolution.
Click to expand...

I think we need to be clear on what you mean by "reran the tape". If you are saying that when we rerun the tape, we start life on earth 4 billion years ago, with asteroid impacts at the same time as they occurred, volcanic eruptions happening as they happened, continents moving the same way, etc...Then things would turn out the same.

What you are trying to claim is that if we start life somewhere else, where the timing, number, and sequence of events is different, then we would get a different result.

Of course, if things are different, then things will be different. This is true of deterministic systems as well. Different initial conditions lead to different outcomes.

You seem to be railing against the idea of convergence. Convergence in evolution is something that is documented to occur, and something that supports some of the evolutionary determinism arguments that people have been putting forth. But convergence is, at best, ancillary to the central claim that has been made. Moreover, convergence does not occur without qualification.

For example, if you put E. Coli. in citrate for long enough, proponents of convergence would argue that it will eventually evolve a means to metabolize citrate. They would also predict that C. Tetani would develop the ability to metabolize citrate if it were placed in a citrate rich environment. But that does not mean proponents of convergence claim that this will happen in the same way in both species, or that it will take the same amount of time.

The fact the convergence occurs, however, is reason to be skeptical that changes in tiny details like random differences in quantum states will have any effect when we "re-roll the tape".
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
zosima-

Aren't you talking about rule 30 with a specific initial condition (i.e., one black square and all others white)?
Click to expand...

Generally, that is the case that people like to talk about.

But I'm also pretty sure that if you start rule 30 with any non-zero, finite set of black squares in an unbounded space, it will not repeat. That said, it'd be an interesting exercise to see if we can find an example where that is not the case. I'm trying to find one right now, but I encourage you to beat me to it.
 
zosima said:
Generally, that is the case that people like to talk about.

But I'm also pretty sure that if you start rule 30 with any non-zero, finite set of black squares in an unbounded space, it will not repeat. That said, it'd be an interesting exercise to see if we can find an example where that is not the case. I'm trying to find one right now, but I encourage you to beat me to it.
Click to expand...

The page sol invictus supplied provided infinitely repeating patterns (in the initial conditions) that yield periodic orbits.
 
articulett said:
Already been done... multiple times. It's not my problem that you are impenetrable to all that goes against what you want to be true.
Click to expand...

No, actually all you have done is repeat your mantra "having random components does not a random process make". This is not the same as present a definition from a mathmatics textbook, dictionary, or encyclopedia.
 
so cute... troll semantics...

They say anything to convince themselves their woo is true and then repeat it to keep their brain washing alive.

See Zosima--I predicted exactly this. Familiarize yourself with the technique. There are some that will demand that you jump through all sorts of hoops asking for evidence that they'll completely deny no matter how much careful effort you go through to provide it. Mijo has been doing this since his first post. His requests are insincere and his thanks for your effort is more of the same nothing... in fact you become a "bad guy" in the woo straw man view for your efforts.

At least you learn whom you can trust and whom to ignore.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
so cute... troll semantics...

They say anything to convince themselves their woo is true and then repeat it to keep their brain washing alive.

See Zosima--I predicted exactly this. Familiarize yourself with the technique. There are some that will demand that you jump through all sorts of hoops asking for evidence that they'll completely deny no matter how much careful effort you go through to provide it. Mijo has been doing this since his first post. His requests are insincere and his thanks for your effort is more of the same nothing... in fact you become a "bad guy" in the woo straw man view for your efforts.

At least you learn whom you can trust and whom to ignore.
Click to expand...

The problem with your much totuted evidence was that it was just assertions that evolution was not random based on a definition of "random" that I was not using. Then, to cover your backside, you insisted that my definition of "random" made everything random, blatantly ignoring that it is the defintion of "random" that mathematicians (who you obviously do not consider to be "smart people") use when studying probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics.
 
Nope, not arguing. Just reiterating... Mijo et. have provided no peer reviewed sources defining random as they are and no peer reviewed sources or respected scientist that say "evolution IS random "nor "evolution is a random process." And yet he keeps contending that some scientists somewhere find his explanation useful in some way.

It appears his definition is only being used by him and not by anyone who actually desires to convey understanding to people. Mijo appears impervious to the fact that nobody considers him an expert on the topic nor his special loose definition useful in regards to evolution, smoke detectors, poker, or anything else.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
The page sol invictus supplied provided infinitely repeating patterns (in the initial conditions) that yield periodic orbits.
Click to expand...

Yes it did. The question I asked was whether a finite initial condition yield a periodic orbit.
 
mijopaalmc said:
The problem with your much totuted evidence was that it was just assertions that evolution was not random based on a definition of "random" that I was not using. Then, to cover your backside, you insisted that my definition of "random" made everything random, blatantly ignoring that it is the defintion of "random" that mathematicians (who you obviously do not consider to be "smart people") use when studying probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics.
Click to expand...

Technically the term you defined was 'random variable' not 'random'.

You inferred that 'random' would have the same sense when it was found in other terms. Generally, people rejected your inference for good reason. While it is okay to separate adjective from a phrase with a given sense and apply them with that sense to other phrases in common language, this is not acceptable with technical terms. Each technical term has a specific definition that may not follow from the senses of its constituent parts of speech.

Thus, since you used a technical definition of 'random variable', your inference is invalid. The observation that this inference makes all systems random, is an example of the odd sorts of conclusions you reach when you make false inferences.
 
zosima said:
I think we need to be clear on what you mean by "reran the tape". If you are saying that when we rerun the tape, we start life on earth 4 billion years ago, with asteroid impacts at the same time as they occurred, volcanic eruptions happening as they happened, continents moving the same way, etc...Then things would turn out the same.

What you are trying to claim is that if we start life somewhere else, where the timing, number, and sequence of events is different, then we would get a different result.

Of course, if things are different, then things will be different. This is true of deterministic systems as well. Different initial conditions lead to different outcomes.

You seem to be railing against the idea of convergence. Convergence in evolution is something that is documented to occur, and something that supports some of the evolutionary determinism arguments that people have been putting forth. But convergence is, at best, ancillary to the central claim that has been made. Moreover, convergence does not occur without qualification.

For example, if you put E. Coli. in citrate for long enough, proponents of convergence would argue that it will eventually evolve a means to metabolize citrate. They would also predict that C. Tetani would develop the ability to metabolize citrate if it were placed in a citrate rich environment. But that does not mean proponents of convergence claim that this will happen in the same way in both species, or that it will take the same amount of time.

The fact the convergence occurs, however, is reason to be skeptical that changes in tiny details like random differences in quantum states will have any effect when we "re-roll the tape".
Click to expand...

I am not railing against convergence, often it will happen. However, sometimes something differnet will happen. This could be rare, but significant enough to alter the fitness landscape.

"rerun the tape" was Gould's analogy. What I mean is that we start with the identical initial conditions. Random events that had not been determined at that time would not have been determined so could be different. Mutations would definately be included in this, I would also contend that this might include some asteroid impacts over the 3.8 billion years since life arose (due to the generally accepted chaotic nature of the orbits of many Near Earth Objects).

Also mutations that happened which changed the fitness landscape significantly for other organisms would have a large effect on which organisms are "selected" and which are not. Given that the vast majority of organisms fail to reproduce, most "advantageous" mutations will also die out, again I would argue that these will be affected by arbitary events, and I would argue that many (not all) of these arbitary events are also random.

A slight difference in wind direction, and the founder population of Darwin's Finches might not have made it to the Galaopgos. A slight difference in weather patterns arouond the time of the Toba eruption (70k yrs ago) and no humans might have survives. Ecosystems would look vastly different if that had happened. A slight difference in the rise of the black death, and civilisation might look significantly differnet, which again would affect many ecosystems, and the slelective pressures.

Slightly different timing of mutations, and different niches could have been filled after the KT impact, again leading to a different set of ecosystems, and different selective pressures. Certain features would evolve many times, certain ones wouldn't.
 
You still seem to think that I don't understand your point: if you execute an algorithm with non-deterministic branching points then yes, if on run one you branch left where on another run you branch right then you will reach a different end point. THIS IS SO TOTALLY AMAZING THAT THERE IS NO WAY I COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE MONTHS OF EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDED!!!

What you seem to fail to understand is that replacing the non-deterministic branching with deterministic branching one can infact reach the same end points. WOW! THIS IS SO TOTALLY UNEXPECTED!!! IF THE ASTEROID STILL CRASHES AND WIPES OUT THE DINOSAURS THEN DINOSAURS ARE STILL ****ED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HUMANS COME ALONG!!!
 
Cyborg, so if random events affect the "shape" of ecosystems and evolutionary pressures, the outcome is nonrandom, despite being significantly affected by random factors, and these factors include the results of other organisms evolution.

OR MAYBE YOU WAND ME TO SHOUT AND USE SOME *** ASTERISKS BECASE tat makes it clear?

WOW! THIS IS SO TOTALLY UNEXPECTED!!! IF THE ASTEROID STILL CRASHES AND WIPES OUT THE DINOSAURS THEN DINOSAURS ARE STILL ****ED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT HUMANS COME ALONG!!!
Click to expand...

You seem to be having a problem with causality. If an asteroid didn't wipe out the dinosaurs, humanity wouldn't have arisn. Even though one did, humanity was far from inevitable at that time. It isn't just a minor species, but the entire ecosystem that would be different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom