Evolution Not Random

[mijopaalmc]

To be fair, however, I still don't understand exactly what definition of "random" Mijo and jimbob are using.

1) Subject to quantum effects
2) Probabilistic in that we don't know all the variables
3) Unknowable

None of the above.

 

[Belz...]

For me I'd say that it is more than we don't know all the variables, but that truly random quantum events can have significant effects. Some local ionization caused by a radioactive decay will, because weather is nonlinear eventually have a significant effect on the weather, and this would affect which organisms reproduce.

I would class it as sufficiently significant if an event changes which organism reproduces.

Similarly, if a nonlinear system (chaotic orbits) caused a mass extinction, then by extension this is also significantly affected by truly random events.

Does that make it clear?

Yes, though it remains that "random" doesn't seem like a particularily useful term, anymore!

 

[Belz...]

None of the above.

Then please, Mijo, by all means, WHAT do you mean by "random" ? You mentioned the probabilistic thing, so I can only assume you changed your definition...

 

[mijopaalmc]

Then please, Mijo, by all means, WHAT do you mean by "random" ? You mentioned the probabilistic thing, so I can only assume you changed your definition...

Belz..., I see that you're playing word games again. Your definitions of random were:

1) Subject to quantum effects
2) Probabilistic in that we don't know all the variables
3) Unknowable

It is possible to have a system where all the variable are known, but it is still only possible to make a statement the certain event will occur with a given probability.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, though it remains that "random" doesn't seem like a particularily useful term, anymore!

Yet Meadmaker, as he has explained several times, has made a decent living applying the above definition (or something close to it) to processes in the automotive industry. Moreover, that is exactly what the car companies hired him to do, so they themselves must find some utility in a definition that most people here consider worthless.

 

[jimbob]

Yes, though it remains that "random" doesn't seem like a particularily useful term, anymore!

Indeed, though I still (slightly) prefer it to "nonrandom", because that implies ineitability, which isn't the case in evolution, except in the fact of adaptation, not the manner.

I would not try to sum it up in one word. I would argue that as it is not nonrandom, it is technically less wrong to describe it as "random". There is a subtle difference between being useless and actively wrong. "Random" is useless and "nonrandom" is wrong, can I chose another way?

It depends on what you consider significant. It wasn't random that the Apollo capsule landed in the Pacific, but if you were interested to the nearest centimetre, its splashdown position might be.

 

[Belz...]

Belz..., I see that you're playing word games again. Your definitions of random were:

It is possible to have a system where all the variable are known, but it is still only possible to make a statement the certain event will occur with a given probability.

Really ? And how could it possibly be that ALL variables are known, but it STILL gives random results and NOT fall into the first definition I gave ?

Yet Meadmaker, as he has explained several times, has made a decent living applying the above definition (or something close to it) to processes in the automotive industry. Moreover, that is exactly what the car companies hired him to do, so they themselves must find some utility in a definition that most people here consider worthless.

That's because "random" isn't used in the same way, I guess. Again, WHAT is your definition of random ?

 

[Fredrik]

Yet Meadmaker, as he has explained several times, has made a decent living applying the above definition (or something close to it) to processes in the automotive industry.

This comment made me look for the post where he said that, and I ended up reading all of Meadmaker's posts in this thread. Now I would just like to say that they are very very good. So if someone just joined in and wonders what posts are worth reading, I have a recommendation: Read Meadmaker's posts.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thanks, Frederik. That was very kind.

Now, however, I'll see how far I can carry it. Wowbagger has launched a thread on the need to stop saying evolution is random, and I think I'm going to try to address it. It should be quite the challenge.