Evolution Not Random

[mijopaalmc]

The problem is that the single piece of evidence that would settle this debate (i.e., whether all individuals with a given collection of phenotypes all reproduce while all other individuals with other phenotypes don't) doesn't seem to exist. What my stridence (for which I apologize profusely), has concealed was that my original argument was that we simply don't have the evidence to rule out the possibility that evolution is random, but simultaneously that possibility that evolution is random doesn't contradict anything that is predicted by the Theory of Evolution and observed in the lab or in the field.

 

[articulett]

Oh, good Lord. It's back from the dead. Again.

Die, vampire/zombie/undead wretch, die.

Come on... it's like Kleinman... they need the attention. And as long as you post, it will go on because they have to get the "last word" to win the game in their head. I think it's a fascinating (but not random) phenomenon to observe. (The hidden goal is to prove to oneself that it makes sense to refer to evolution as random and that everyone who says it is not is being unclear--.. but you can't let anyone else or even oneself know that is the goal.) It's like Kleinman needing to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible. They keep their "belief" alive by honing it against skeptics and pretending to be scientifically rigorous. They enjoy this as much as we do.

 

[Kotatsu]

The problem is that the single piece of evidence that would settle this debate (i.e., whether all individuals with a given collection of phenotypes all reproduce while all other individuals with other phenotypes don't) doesn't seem to exist. What my stridence (for which I apologize profusely), has concealed was that my original argument was that we simply don't have the evidence to rule out the possibility that evolution is random, but simultaneously that possibility that evolution is random doesn't contradict anything that is predicted by the Theory of Evolution and observed in the lab or in the field.

Question: does "all reproduce" ignore effects that will kill the individual before it has time to reproduce. That is, if all individuals with trait A* are denied the possibility to mate for some reason, but all individuals with trait A get to reproduce, provided they are not, for instance, eaten before reaching maturity, would that satisfy your conditions? Or is this a stricter form of "all" where every single individual with trait A that is conceived has to reproduce further along for your condition to be satisfied?

Question 2: Does the word "reproduce" here mean that it has to get fertile offspring, that it just has to get offspring whether it is fertile or not, or that it just has to have sex (provided the organism does have sex)?

 

[sol invictus]

In sum, seven months after posting my question I still haven't gotten a straight answer as to what evidence there is of evolution being non-random*?

*in sense of not "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution"

There is obviously no such evidence because by your definition (which does not coincide with the Oxford English Dictionary's) evolution IS random.

We know of mechanisms by which mutations can occur that are random in your sense - for example, a cosmic ray can fly in from space and knock DNA in one of your sperm around, which can cause your child to have a mutation. Or the sperm might have a replication error. Both of those events can be described by a probability distribution. There are other mechanisms for mutation, there is certainly more to the story, but those processes without doubt contribute to evolution.

So there's your answer. OK?

 

[chulbert]

How would you characterise the game if these variations were deterministically decided?

I would characterize the game as deterministic, obviously. Are you suggesting that mutations are deterministic?

 

[chulbert]

There's no reason not to be able to know the outcome of the dice through if you can model the system exactly.

Same is true for really anything (except the quantum level, stupid heisenberg).

This is not strictly true; a deterministic system is not necessarily predictable.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Question: does "all reproduce" ignore effects that will kill the individual before it has time to reproduce. That is, if all individuals with trait A* are denied the possibility to mate for some reason, but all individuals with trait A get to reproduce, provided they are not, for instance, eaten before reaching maturity, would that satisfy your conditions? Or is this a stricter form of "all" where every single individual with trait A that is conceived has to reproduce further along for your condition to be satisfied?

Question 2: Does the word "reproduce" here mean that it has to get fertile offspring, that it just has to get offspring whether it is fertile or not, or that it just has to have sex (provided the organism does have sex)?

When I say "all reproduce", I mean all survive conditions that can reasonably expected to occur regularly over the lifetime of the individual in the environment in which it lives and produce offspring that are capable of having offspring themselves with in the parameters provided by the eniviroment. For instance, lung fish have rudimentary lungs so that they can survive the seasonal fluctuations in the water level of their habitat. However, it would be extremely unlikely for any lungfish to survive if all the water sources in their habitat dried up to the point that the earth was cracked and dry since, as I recall, they have to lay their eggs in water or mud. Such "rare stressors" include things such as bolide impacts, pyroclastic flows, and flash floods as they all select without respect to the individual's phenotype even when variation induced by drift and mutation is taken into account. In other word, "all reproduce" refers to those individuals that are subject to selective pressures that select with respect to phenotypes that can be reasonably expected to exist in the population due to variation induced by drift and mutation.

 

[mijopaalmc]

This is not strictly true; a deterministic system is not necessarily predictable.

All deterministic systems are predictable if you are able reproduce the initial conditions with infinite accuracy. The "unpredictability" of chaotic deterministic dynamical systems comes from the fact that it is impossible to reproduce the initial conditions with infinite accuracy.

 

[cyborg]

Do you have evidence that mutation is deterministic?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[articulett]

Direction of evolution is determined by that which is preferentially replicated in a given environment. The parts of genomes that get themselves copied are the only parts that can evolve.

And for those new to Mijo's argument... Every process is random if it contains any randomness and randomness is "anything having to do with probability"... so he's correct that there is nothing that could disprove that evolution is random to him-- but that's because he insists on using a very loose and meaningless definition of the word that negates the explanatory power of natural selection and leads directly to the tornado in a junkyard strawman.

To him it would only be nonrandom if we could predict the outcome before hand. Crazy, but true. But that makes the development of a fetus random... and just about everything else.

 

[cyborg]

I would characterize the game as deterministic, obviously.

Seems a lot of people think the rules of games are rather incidental to their make-up then.

Are you suggesting that mutations are deterministic?

Are you suggesting it makes a difference to the rules of the game?

 

[Meadmaker]

When I ask for evidence that evolution is "random" by one definition and receive evidence that evolution is "random" by another definition, that is not a straight answer. In fact, equivocation is one form of fallacious argumentation that people here like to slam creationists for.

Certainly, that's true. You have received straight answers to your question. You have also received not quite so straight answers to your question.

I could ask, "From what direction will the sun rise tomorrow." Some people will say "East". Others will say, "It depends on where you live. In most of the northern hemisphere it is slightly to the south of due east." Someone might say, "You blithering idiot. This is obviously some flat earth ploy to trick people into getting confused about sunrise, since the sun only appears to rise, but it's really an illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth. I'm onto you, scumbag!"

At that point, if you complain that you haven't gotten a straight answer, you are being unreasonable. You have gotten a straight answer. You've also gotten a more difficult to understand, but actually more accurate answer. Finally, you have gotten a really weird answer.

On the question of whether or not evolution is random, using the definition that you are using, the answer is yes. That is a straight answer. I would advise you not to hold your breath waiting for everyone to acknowledge it. If you deprive yourself of oxygen while waiting, your pulse rate at t=1.5 minutes may be described by a random variable, but your pulse rate at t=15 minutes will be deterministic.

 

[chulbert]

All deterministic systems are predictable if you are able reproduce the initial conditions with infinite accuracy. The "unpredictability" of chaotic deterministic dynamical systems comes from the fact that it is impossible to reproduce the initial conditions with infinite accuracy.

And you would be tall if only your legs were longer.

I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that one cannot predict the future state of a deterministic system if one is part of that system due to infinite regression. Alas, we're spinning off topic, I fear.

 

[Meadmaker]

The problem is that the single piece of evidence that would settle this debate (i.e., whether all individuals with a given collection of phenotypes all reproduce while all other individuals with other phenotypes don't) doesn't seem to exist. What my stridence (for which I apologize profusely), has concealed was that my original argument was that we simply don't have the evidence to rule out the possibility that evolution is random, but simultaneously that possibility that evolution is random doesn't contradict anything that is predicted by the Theory of Evolution and observed in the lab or in the field.

Yes, it does exist, and this has been pointed out repeatedly. A pair of identical twins has an identical genotype and, for all practical purposes, an identical phenotype. We can find cases where one twin reproduces, and another does not.

 

[sol invictus]

And for those new to Mijo's argument... Every process is random if it contains any randomness and randomness is "anything having to do with probability"... so he's correct that there is nothing that could disprove that evolution is random to him-- but that's because he insists on using a very loose and meaningless definition of the word that negates the explanatory power of natural selection and leads directly to the tornado in a junkyard strawman.

Yes, you appear to be right. I notice he ignored my answer to his question above. Clearly, with a definition like

"random" is the sense of "[o]f or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution"

absolutely everything is "random". Even ideal deterministic processes can be described by probability distributions (just rather simple ones). This definition is so general as to be absolutely useless, and there obviously cannot be any evidence that evolution is not "random" using it - everything is "random".

 

[chulbert]

Direction of evolution is determined by that which is preferentially replicated in a given environment. The parts of genomes that get themselves copied are the only parts that can evolve.

And for those new to Mijo's argument... Every process is random if it contains any randomness and randomness is "anything having to do with probability"... so he's correct that there is nothing that could disprove that evolution is random to him-- but that's because he insists on using a very loose and meaningless definition of the word that negates the explanatory power of natural selection and leads directly to the tornado in a junkyard strawman.

You might be right about his motives but that doesn't invalidate his position.

As I said in my initial post in this thread, I typically characterize evolution as a deterministic function with non-deterministic inputs. Unfortunately, technically, that necessitates that I admit evolution is random if someone holds my feet to the fire in a technical discussion. The very definition of a stochastic process is one where a given state contains insufficient information to predict the future state. As far as I understand it anyways.

So, yes, once you introduce randomness you've buggered the whole thing up. That randomness might be curtailed and shaped by a very non-random process but no matter what you may wish for, you can't predict the future state of a gene based on its current state. It's a stochastic process.

So, please (please, please, please), explain where I am mistaken without calling me a creationist. Please.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

So, no, you do not have evidence that mutation is deterministic. Without evidence, your question about how the game would change if the rule were "deterministically decided" is a meaningless thought experiment.

 

[sol invictus]

So, yes, once you introduce randomness you've buggered the whole thing up. That randomness might be curtailed and shaped by a very non-random process but no matter what you may wish for, you can't predict the future state of a gene based on its current state. It's a stochastic process.

So, please (please, please, please), explain where I am mistaken without calling me a creationist. Please.

Why in the world do you think you're mistaken? Of course we can't predict the future state of a gene (except possibly in some extremely simple and contrived situations). We can't even predict the weather next week!

So what?

 

[articulett]

You might be right about his motives but that doesn't invalidate his position.

As I said in my initial post in this thread, I typically characterize evolution as a deterministic function with non-deterministic inputs. Unfortunately, technically, that necessitates that I admit evolution is random if someone holds my feet to the fire in a technical discussion. The very definition of a stochastic process is one where a given state contains insufficient information to predict the future state. As far as I understand it anyways.

So, yes, once you introduce randomness you've buggered the whole thing up. That randomness might be curtailed and shaped by a very non-random process but no matter what you may wish for, you can't predict the future state of a gene based on its current state. It's a stochastic process.

So, please (please, please, please), explain where I am mistaken without calling me a creationist. Please.

You are not mistaken. Most people including biologists would say something to the effect that mutation is relatively random while selection is not-- it selects the "fittest" from the pool of randomness. So although randomness plays a role, what we observe and the appearance of design comes from the accumulated selection and exponential replication of the "fittest" random mutants.

You are stating it clearly. I suspect you can convey natural selection better than mijo. The part about evolution that is difficult to understand is NOT the randomness... that was not important at all to Darwin's theory-- it was natural selection... the process which leads to the appearance of design.

I think the biologists are describing it in the clearest way possible to avoid mistakes and misunderstandings... I think it's hilarious that self appointed experts would call the science papers or Dawkins or biologists wrong in their description of the process and then pretend that it's meaningful or conveys information to call evolution random. In what way is this useful? How do you distinguish the relative randomness of mutation from seemingly unpredictable events in the environment doing the selecting?

Mijo, like creationists, attempts to make other people feel like it's their lack of education that makes him so hard to understand--but it's the fact that he's not saying anything. The scientists who describe evolution and/or natural selection are not difficult to understand... most of us have no problem understanding each other. But some people aim to prove their non voiced opinion as right in their head by arguing against others without saying that is what they are doing-- they tell themselves that you don't understand because you aren't educated enough to get what they are saying. But Mijo isn't saying anything. He's not saying what you are saying. You may be hearing him saying what you are saying, but he's just reaffirming to himself that it makes sense to say evolution is random--and the science writers, Dawkins, me, et. al. are wrong while he's amazingly clear (in his head.) He defines evolution in a way that doesn't nothing to encourage understanding and in a way that obfuscates understanding of natural selection in the identical manner that creationists do. He makes the simple complicated while pretending to be rigorous and simplifying.

You can prove this to yourself by trying to paraphrase or sum up what he said in any given post. Compare this to what someone you consider an expert is saying in a post. Compare this with the OP and the general direction of the conversation in this thread. Ask yourself what the goals are of the various people participating. There are some people (not you) who seem to pop into threads to obfuscate understanding of evolution or natural selection without offering any alternative useful way of understanding or clarifying what we observe in return. I call these people "creationists who deny that they are creationists."

 

[mijopaalmc]

It's really simple:

deterministic mutation + deterministic selection = detereministic evolution

deterministic mutation + random selection = random evolution

random mutation + deterministic selection = random evolution

random mutation + random selection = random evolution