Intelligent design's predictions

[quixotecoyote]

To sum up: There's is and has been a continuing argument over the meaning and use of random, chance, and stochastic within the scientific community with many credible scientists on both sides.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

ScienceDaily (Nov. 19, 2007) — A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms.

Whatever. Evolution is still random.¹
~~ Paul

[size=-2]1. This is the footnote that a reasonable person would include to expand upon the simple label "random." I refuse to include it, however.[/size]

 

[mijopaalmc]

I think that the major problem with the article is that ity never actually define what they mean by "random". As I have said before, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a probabilistic/random/stochastic system can't exhibit orderly and "unidirectional" behavior, which is exactly what the article seems to be implying when it says:

For example, they concluded that the number of cell divisions needed in vulva development declined over time -- instead of randomly increasing and decreasing. In addition, the team noted that the number of rings used to form the vulva consistently declined during the evolutionary process. These results demonstrate that, even where we might expect evolution to be random, it is not.

(emphasis mine)

The point is that if the decrease in the number of cells needed for vulvar development was favored by natural selection, the individuals who possessed this trait would produce more offspring on average than those who didn't possess it, causing the trait to become fixed in the population. However, the fact that the individuals who required fewer cells for vulvar development produced more offspring on average that those who didn't possess it says nothing about the precise number offspring produced by each individual who required fewer cells for vulvar development. It is the ability to describe the average or mean behavior of an ensemble of individuals over long periods of time when describing the behavior of each individual separately is either impractical or impossible that makes evolution a stochastic process.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think that the major problem with the article is that ity never actually define what they mean by "random".

(I guess I was wrong. He is spinning the article. )

I think the point of the article is that a wide variety of vulva development processes and histories, in ringworms, has converged on a single "design" (or at least closely similar set of "designs"). If we can show that the emergence of such systems is inevitable in a given fitness landscape, it gives further credability to the idea that evolution is non-random, in practically every sense of the word.

 

[quixotecoyote]

(I guess I was wrong. He is spinning the article. )

I think the point of the article is that a wide variety of vulva development processes and histories, in ringworms, has converged on a single "design" (or at least closely similar set of "designs"). If we can show that the emergence of such systems is inevitable in a given fitness landscape, it gives further credability to the idea that evolution is non-random, in practically every sense of the word.

From my first link:

As Starnos notes at the end of this paper, such an exclusion is crucial for the defense of Darwinism against theological or metaphysical compromise. Stamos quotes Monod's (1971, 112-1 13) claim: "chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all the creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact." Without real randomness, it is always open to exponents of teleological explanation-whether theistic or otherwise-to hypothesize a force which arranges mutations in order to
produce some pre-ordained outcome that looks for all the world like natural
selection over random variation. With real randomness, no such reconciliation of Darwinism and design is logically possible.

...

Glymour concludes that "any complete and correct evolutionary theory
must be probabilistic" (2001,532). This of course is something GHR never
doubted. Still less, pace Glymour (2001, 532), did they assert that evolutionary
biologists need assume the truth of determinism. What they asserted
was that the world is indeterministic, but that fact alone cannot by
itself go very far towards explaining the statistical character of evolutionary
theory. I suspect in the end Stamos and Glymour agree with GHR on
this conclusion.

If mijo is spinning, then so are a lot of experts in biology and philosophy.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I was unable to access the article "Evolution:Help for the Confused" (April 1979 BioScience 29:238-241)

But in a letter in its defense, the author clarifies a misunderstanding very similar to yours and articulett's
eta:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-3568(197907)29:7<397:RP>2.0.CO;2-N

Author's Reply
Norton's comments on my use of the term
random process make a valid point, but I prefer
to keep my categories clearly defined. As I
point out in the article, the term stochastic is
available and in use for the sort of "random"
process he describes, which is biased in favor
of one particular outcome. All biological
processes are stochastic, rather than purely
or absolutely random in the sense I have
defined.

It follows that the ascription of natural
events in living systems to "pure chance" is
incorrect if, by that expression, absolute or
unbiased randomness is implied. Wagers may
be laid on a horse race, which is a stochastic
process in which no one expects that the
probability of winning is the same for all the
horses. On the other hand, no one would wish
to wager on the outcome of a game played
with dice such as Norton describes, since the
assumption underlying all games of chance is
that the process involved is purely or absolutely
random in the sense I have used.
BRADLEY T. SCHEER
Department of Biology (Emeritus)
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403

As I've said. Some things may be said to be more random than others.

 

[mijopaalmc]

(I guess I was wrong. He is spinning the article. )

I think the point of the article is that a wide variety of vulva development processes and histories, in ringworms, has converged on a single "design" (or at least closely similar set of "designs"). If we can show that the emergence of such systems is inevitable in a given fitness landscape, it gives further credability to the idea that evolution is non-random, in practically every sense of the word.

Of all people, I thought you would be the one to recognize when articulett is equivocating. The fact is that "random" has many different definition, some of which are mutually exclusive:

ran·dom (răn'dəm) pronunciation
adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:

at random

1. Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

ran·dom /ˈrændəm/ [ran-duhm]
–adjective

1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3. Building Trades.
   
   • without uniformity: random-sized slates.
   • (of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
   • (of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
4. Chiefly British. bank3 (def. 7b).
5. Building Trades. without uniformity
   –noun
6. constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.
   –adverb
7. at random, without definite aim, purpose, method, or adherence to a prior arrangement; in a haphazard way: Contestants were chosen at random from the studio audience.

Main Entry:random
Function: adjective
Date: 1632

1 a: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b: made, done, or chosen at random <read random passages from the book>2 a: relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>
— ran·dom·ly adverb
— ran·dom·ness noun

Now, I am pretty sure that you are an intelligent person, so I don't need to go through and explain how each definition of "random" differs from the other ones. Needless to say there is a stark distinction between the "common" definitions of "random" which see "random" as being without design, pattern, plan, or purpose and the "mathematical" definitions (even the one that refers to "having equal probabilities") which see "random" as being related to probability.

Briefly, this has to do with the fact that probability is itself defined by a series of functions (which are themselves mathematical patterns). Therefore, the "mathematical" definitions distinguish themselves from the "common" definitions because they possess a property which the "common" definitions say that "random" should not possess (i.e., pattern). My problem with the ScienceDaily article thus arises: the article make it clear, by a series of juxtapositions (some which I have already cited), that it is using "random" is the "common" sense of lacking design, pattern, plan, or purpose (see, for instance, the comments on the "uniderictionality" of vulvar evolution) and not in the "mathematical" sense of pertaining to probability or chance and therefore doesn't address the central premise of evolution's "randomness" being based on probabilities. Unfortunately, as quixotecoyote has noted, the further equivocation of "random" meaning "equiprobable" further frustrates the discussion of the randomness of evolution. This is not to say that "random" cannot mean "lacking design, pattern, plan, or purpose" or "equiprobable", but it is to note that people seems to prefer to equivocate clearly stated definitions to avoid discussing evolution as being "random".

 

[cyborg]

What exactly is it about the fact that summing up any process as "random" or "non-random" gives precisely zero information about it that isn't getting through?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Have you missed that no one is just leaving it at that?

 

[cyborg]

Selection is deterministic with respect to phenome.
Mutation is non-deterministic with respect to genome.

Anything else is arguing metaphysics.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Everyone else is arguing what to label evolution as a whole.

As I mentioned, I've been on JSTOR and EBSCO pulling up articles. This is not an open and shut issue. There are arguments going on between actual biologists as to evolutions determinacy. There seems to be a majority calling it random or stochastic, but I'm not claiming I've read close to all the articles on the subject.

The attitude that it is a closed issue that only idiots would differ on goes to show the truth and irony of articulett's sig.

 

[cyborg]

Everyone else is arguing what to label evolution as a whole.

Er yes - that would be the problem I described above.

I know - how's about we label evolution as a whole "evolution"?

The attitude that it is a closed issue that only idiots would differ on goes to show the truth and irony of articulett's sig.

The idiotic thing is not to realise the arbitrariness of the decision.

 

[mijopaalmc]

What exactly is it about the fact that summing up any process as "random" or "non-random" gives precisely zero information about it that isn't getting through?

Have you missed that saying that evolution is "random" still provides a mechanism for adaptive optimization without all the hand waving about "infinite machines" or "deterministic frameworks"?

 

[cyborg]

Have you missed that saying that evolution is "random" still provides a mechanism for adaptive optimization without all the hand waving about "infinite machines" or "deterministic frameworks"?

Sufficiently large numbers are good enough to simulate infinity.

But then why should I be surprised that you don't get it when you still insist the model is reality?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Sufficiently large numbers are good enough to simulate infinity.

But then why should I be surprised that you don't get it when you still insist the model is reality?

I actually do understand that, at sufficiently large system sizes, the behavior of a finite system approaches that of an infinite system, but you don't seem to understand that there are still measurable differences between an extremely large finite system and an infinite system. Furthermore it is the properties of the mathematics of randomness that dictate a convergence to "determinism" at large system sizes and over long periods of time.

 

[cyborg]

I actually do understand that, at sufficiently large system sizes, the behavior of a finite system approaches that of an infinite system, but you don't seem to understand that there are still measurable differences between an extremely large finite system and an infinite system.

At which point am I allowed to stop caring about those differences?

Furthermore it is the properties of the mathematics of randomness that dictate a convergence to "determinism" at large system sizes and over long periods of time.

Yes it is. So why are we still pretending there's a strict difference exactly?

 

[mijopaalmc]

At which point am I allowed to stop caring about those differences?

That's the point: it's by and large arbitrary.

Yes it is. So why are we still pretending there's a strict difference exactly?

I'm not pretending, because there are mathematical ways of describing physical systems that leave no room for randomness at their most basic level. They are said to be deterministic in so far as there is only one possible outcome in existence given any given set of initial conditions. Probabilistic systems always have at least two possible outcomes, even if the probability is zero.

Think of it as the difference between the probability of hitting a dart board that consists of the entire universe and hitting a specific point or line on that dart board.

 

[cyborg]

That's the point: it's by and large arbitrary.

I believe my point is made.

Think of it as the difference between the probability of hitting a dart board that consists of the entire universe and hitting a specific point or line on that dart board.

The point is the dart board.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Every label is going to be arbitrary to some degree.

The issue of how to label evolution, how to describe it, is a question that has and is involving a significant number of professionals in the field.

The Concept of Evolution
R. J. Spilsbury
Mind, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 252. (Oct., 1954), pp. 544-545.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-4423(195410)2:63:252<544:TCOE>2.0.CO;2-0
-endorses random with some definitional provisos

Random Drift and the Omniscient Viewpoint
Roberta L. Millstein
Philosophy of Science, Vol. 63, No. 3, Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. (Sep., 1996), pp. S10-S18.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248(199609)63:3<S10:RDATOV>2.0.CO;2-4
-calls it non-deterministic, non-instrumental, but stops short of calling it random

Cornette, J. L., & Lieberman, B. S. (2004). Random walks in the history of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101(1), 187-91.
- evolution as a random walk

Title:Chaos and Life: Complexity and Randomness in Evolution and Thought (Book).Authors:Cressler, Walter L.1Source:Library Journal; 11/15/2003, Vol. 128 Issue 19, p95-95, 1/6phttp://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.missouristate.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11427198&site=ehost-live -article disagrees with a book that calls evolution iterative and nonrandom

Random Evolution Processes with Feedback
Kyle Siegrist
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 265, No. 2. (Jun., 1981), pp. 375-392.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9947(198106)265:2<375:REPWF>2.0.CO;2-1
-from a mathematical view of evolution (non-biological)

The Evolution of Species?
George W. Tyler
The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 38, No. 4. (Apr., 1987), pp. 373-374.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682(198704)38:4<373:TEOS>2.0.CO;2-A
-stochastic, but with an unusual idea that evolution should be considered primarily at a taxa higher than species

Title:Evolution probabilities and phylogenetic distance of dinucleotides.Authors:Michel, Christian J.1 michel@dpt-info.u-strasbg.frSource:Journal of Theoretical Biology; Nov2007, Vol. 249 Issue 2, p271-277, 7phttp://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.missouristate.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27228342&site=ehost-live -stochastic, but I only read the abstract for this one.

A Statistical Test of Unbiased Evolution of Body Size in Birds
Folmer Bokma
Evolution, Vol. 56, No. 12. (Dec., 2002), pp. 2499-2504.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(200212)56:12<2499:ASTOUE>2.0.CO;2-5
- not random/not unbiased, one of the more interesting ones to have a read through if you're interested in what we current can and cannot tell about the evolution of traits.





And of course, the articles I posted earlier.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Here are a few more articles to add to quixotecoyote's list:

Author(s): Brunnander, B (Brunnander, Bjorn)
Title: What is natural selection?
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 22 (2): 231-246 MAR 2007

Author(s): Millstein, RL (Millstein, Roberta L.)
Title: Natural selection as a population-level causal process
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 57 (4): 627-653 DEC 2006

Author(s): Pigliucci, M
Title: Genetic variance-covariance matrices: A critique of the evolutionary quantitative genetics research program
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 21 (1): 1-23 JAN 2006

Author(s): Hinzen, W
Title: Spencerism and the causal theory of reference
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 21 (1): 71-94 JAN 2006

Author(s): Reisman, K (Reisman, Kenneth); Forber, P (Forber, Patrick)
Title: Manipulation and the causes of evolution
Source: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 72 (5): 1113-1123 DEC 2005

Author(s): Brandon, RN
Title: The difference between selection and drift: A reply to Millstein
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 20 (1): 153-170 JAN 2005

Author(s): Bouchard, F; Rosenberg, A
Title: Fitness, probability and the principles of natural selection
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 55 (4): 693-712 DEC 2004

Author(s): Pust, J
Title: Natural selection and the traits of individual organisms
Source: BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY, 19 (5): 765-779 NOV 2004

Author(s): Stephens, C
Title: Selection, drift, and the "forces" of evolution
Source: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 71 (4): 550-570 OCT 2004

Author(s): Walsh, DM
Title: Bookkeeping or metaphysics? The Units of Selection debate
Source: SYNTHESE, 138 (3): 337-361 FEB 2004

Author(s): Matthen, M
Title: Is sex really necessary? And other questions for Lewens
Source: BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, 54 (2): 297-308 JUN 2003