Natural selection

[cyborg]

However, individuals with identical phenotypes do not always have identical access to the resources necessary for survival and reproduction and therefore don't necessarily all survive and reproduce. Thus, since identical phenotypes do not always yield survival and reproduction, evolution by natural selection is a stochastic process.

Life is unfair DOES NOT IMPLY life is random.

You and your twin are exposed to radically different environments; therefore, you cannot make a valid comparison between your survival his lack thereof that makes environmental selection deterministic.

It's the same difference mijo - the extreme example simply highlights your inconsistency in reasoning.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Life is unfair DOES NOT IMPLY life is random.

As long as one describes better access to resources in the environment as increasing the probability of survival and reproduction, one is describing natural selection as a stochastic (or random) process.

It's the same difference mijo - the extreme example simply highlights your inconsistency in reasoning.

Actually all it does is demonstrate just how talented you are at constructing straw men. I have always described the environment (at least implicitly) as acting upon a phenotype to cause selection. Thus, you cannot use the selection (or lack thereof) of a given phenotype in two different (in the case of your twin example, radically different) environments to declare to declare evolution by natural selection not to be random by the definition I have provided.

 

[cyborg]

As long as one describes better access to resources in the environment as increasing the probability of survival and reproduction, one is describing natural selection as a stochastic (or random) process.

If my twin is richer and that leads to better survival that is NOT random. The better survival is a result OF BEING RICHER.

Actually all it does is demonstrate just how talented you are at constructing straw men.

I think it demonstrates your inability to be consistent.

I have always described the environment (at least implicitly) as acting upon a phenotype to cause selection.

Access to resources is not an environmental concern then is it?

Thus, you cannot use the selection (or lack thereof) of a given phenotype in two different (in the case of your twin example, radically different) environments to declare to declare evolution by natural selection not to be random by the definition I have provided.

It is not possible to exist in the exact same environment as someone else. Sometimes all it takes is a simple positional difference.

You refuse to accept this. You refuse to grasp the difference between class and instance.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If my twin is richer and that leads to better survival that is NOT random. The better survival is a result OF BEING RICHER.

Here again you show your mastery of equivocation. "Random" as I am using does not have anything to do with causal relationship; it is purely based in probabilities. Your twin has a larger probability of survival and reproduction than you because he is richer, but he is not guaranteed to survive and reproduce nor is anyone with an identical phenotype to him guaranteed of survival and reproduction because they are richer.

I think it demonstrates your inability to be consistent.

Really? How so?

I think it was you who, for the purposes of your most recent post, decided that "random" meant "acausal" instead of "based on probability" which is how I have always and exclusively used it in reference to evolution by natural selection.

Access to resources is not an environmental concern then is it?

Where did I say that?

It is not possible to exist in the exact same environment as someone else. Sometimes all it takes is a simple positional difference.

You refuse to accept this. You refuse to grasp the difference between class and instance.

Uh....you seem to be deliberately defining "environment" in such a narrow way that no-one can exist in the same "environment". If the individual caries around their own personal environment with them wherever they go, then, yes, you are right it is impossible for two individuals to occupy the same environment. However, this is not the way that evolutionary biologists tend to define "environment", so I think you need to revise your statement above.

 

[jimbob]

Alternatively, it could be that the chances of reproducing are affected by nonrandom factors (e.g. climate), random factors (e.g. weather - see the discussion about quantum effects aand nonlinear systems) and the traits of the organism.

This would make selection a probabilistic pocess, where one could statistically analyse the effect of certain traits, but in principle, could never say with 100% certainty what the reproductive success of any infant organism will be. This would be due to the influence of inherently random systems, and not just an incomplete knowledge of those systems*.



*Of course if quantum efffects are nonrandom, then all this is tosh, and the inability to predict is simply due to our lack of knowledge...

 

[cyborg]

"Random" as I am using does not have anything to do with causal relationship; it is purely based in probabilities.

Same old same old then.

Anytime you eliminate knowledge about variables you introduce probabilities.

You want to make strong claims about things arising from this.

I think it was you who, for the purposes of your most recent post, decided that "random" meant "acausal" instead of "based on probability"

Randomness IS acausal.

However, this is not the way that evolutionary biologists tend to define "environment", so I think you need to revise your statement above.

Right - and as soon as you accept that such a choice of what an environment is is arbitrary then you'll stop making strong statements about probability actually being vastly consequential to the properties of the thing that is modelled rather than being an artifact of how you choose to model it.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Same old same old then.

Not really.

Anytime you eliminate knowledge about variables you introduce probabilities.

You want to make strong claims about things arising from this.

And here is the fundamental flaw in your logic: you can have complete knowledge of a system, such as the wavefunction of a quantum mechanical ensemble, and still not be able to predict what will happen next. Thus, while there are still a lot of areas in evolutionary biology where we lack knowledge, the randomness of evolution by natural selection does not necessarily proceed from our lack of knowledge of the system.

Randomness IS acausal.

No, it isn't. At least mathematical definition I am using makes no assumption about causality or the lack thereof.

Right - and as soon as you accept that such a choice of what an environment is is arbitrary then you'll stop making strong statements about probability actually being vastly consequential to the properties of the thing that is modelled rather than being an artifact of how you choose to model it.

But the definition of environment isn't as arbitrary as you would like it to be. In fact sometimes it is quite clear where one environment stops and another begin. For instance, placental mammals cannot breathe underwater, so if you force them to stay underwater longer than they can hold their breath, they will drown. Thus, making a placental mammal obligately aquatic (e.g., preventing it from surfacing) is introducing it to an environment in which it didn't evolve to survive. Now, water features can provide obstacle for these placental mammals in their environment, and chances are that, if the species is exposed to enough them for long enough, they will develop coping strategies (like the cetaceans did), but throwing a baby in lake is still drastically changing its primary environment in a way that it has not evolved to survive.

 

[Wowbagger]

At least mathematical definition I am using...

By the way, just because math defines something some way, does NOT mean nature works that way.

Science tries to discover what nature is actually doing, regardless of how mathematicians (or others, for that matter) define things.

 

[Walter Wayne]

By the way, just because math defines something some way, does NOT mean nature works that way.

Science tries to discover what nature is actually doing, regardless of how mathematicians (or others, for that matter) define things.

Random is a word. Science doesn't try to discover what words mean. Random doesn't mean acausal by technical or layman definition.

Walt

 

[mijopaalmc]

By the way, just because math defines something some way, does NOT mean nature works that way.

Science tries to discover what nature is actually doing, regardless of how mathematicions (or others, for that matter) define things.

So why the adamant refusal to consider that randomness could be a fundamental and irremovable characteristic of evolution by natural selection?

A model that works well in predicting the outcome of a process may not actually be describing how the process proceeds, but the fact that it works well should be an indicator that it is at least possible (if not extremely likely) that the model is actually be describing how the process proceeds.

By the way, many to the of the foundational thinker who constructed the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory (e.g, Wright, Fisher and Haldane) had no trouble thinking of and referring to evolution by natural selection as a stochastic process as they were both gifted mathematicians and talented biologists. Now, there is the legitimate objection that they weren't actually calling the process itself stochastic but merely considering it to be stochastic to ease the modeling process; however, the fact that such great minds thought of evolution by natural selection as stochastic seems to imply that such an idea deserves more than just the out-of-hand rejection that it receives to day form people whose mathematical credentials are suspect.

 

[Taffer]

So why the adamant refusal to consider that randomness could be a fundamental and irremovable characteristic of evolution by natural selection?

I've been away a while, so my apologies if you've already provided this, but I don't ever recall you providing a suitable definition of random as being applied in this situation. Additionally, I wouldn't say randomness is an "irremovable characteristic" of evolution by natural selection, I would say "it is a fact that there is a random element to evolution by natural selection" - it is possible to have no random elements at all and have evolution by natural selection still occur.

A model that works well in predicting the outcome of a process may not actually be describing how the process proceeds, but the fact that it works well should be an indicator that it is at least possible (if not extremely likely) that the model is actually be describing how the process proceeds.

I wouldn't go that far. Take gravity for example. We can very accurately predict the effects of it, but that description is not an explanation of what causes gravity to occur.

By the way, many to the of the foundational thinker who constructed the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory (e.g, Wright, Fisher and Haldane) had no trouble thinking of and referring to evolution by natural selection as a stochastic process as they were both gifted mathematicians and talented biologists. Now, there is the legitimate objection that they weren't actually calling the process itself stochastic but merely considering it to be stochastic to ease the modeling process; however, the fact that such great minds thought of evolution by natural selection as stochastic seems to imply that such an idea deserves more than just the out-of-hand rejection that it receives to day form people whose mathematical credentials are suspect.

Um...didn't you just contradict yourself? Either they considered it stochastic, or they didn't. Also, please don't make me point out a boarderline argument from authority. If there is a reason to consider it stochastic, then provide the evidence.

 

[cyborg]

And here is the fundamental flaw in your logic: you can have complete knowledge of a system, such as the wavefunction of a quantum mechanical ensemble, and still not be able to predict what will happen next.

And here is the fundamental flaw in your logic (again): you cannot have complete knowledge of that system. If you did you would know what would happen next.

No, it isn't. At least mathematical definition I am using makes no assumption about causality or the lack thereof.

Since randomness is acuasal it sure makes an assumption about causality - namely that the random event doesn't have it.

But the definition of environment isn't as arbitrary as you would like it to be. In fact sometimes it is quite clear where one environment stops and another begin.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

One has to presume that the rest of the time it's not so clear cut is it?

 

[mijopaalmc]

And here is the fundamental flaw in your logic (again): you cannot have complete knowledge of that system. If you did you would know what would happen next.

Actually, the wavefunction describes all that it is possible to know about the ensemble. It just happens that what is possible to know come in the form of a range of values (i.e., a probability distribution) rather than a single exact value. In other words, you are completely mistaken about quantum mechanics.

Since randomness is acuasal it sure makes an assumption about causality - namely that the random event doesn't have it.

But randomness, as has been explained to you many times before, is not necessarily acausal. For instance, X inactivation in placental mammals is random in so far as both the maternal and paternal X chromosome are equally likely to be inactivated for dosage compensation, but we nonetheless know the mechanism of X inactivation in great deal.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

One has to presume that the rest of the time it's not so clear cut is it?

The main point was that particular example you picked of throwing your twin in to a body of water does not actually say anything about the randomness of evolution by natural selection, because you have two radically different environments with radically different selection criteria into which your identical phenotypes are introduced. It is a wonder specimen of a straw man, though.

 

[cyborg]

Actually, the wavefunction describes all that it is possible to know about the ensemble. It just happens that what is possible to know come in the form of a range of values (i.e., a probability distribution) rather than a single exact value. In other words, you are completely mistaken about quantum mechanics.

Or, in other words, you still don't quite seem to grasp what COMPLETE knowledge entails.

(HINT: It is a subset of the knowledge it is possible to have about this system.)

But randomness, as has been explained to you many times before, is not necessarily acausal.

Randomness is necessarialy acuasal.

For instance, X inactivation in placental mammals is random in so far as both the maternal and paternal X chromosome are equally likely to be inactivated for dosage compensation, but we nonetheless know the mechanism of X inactivation in great deal.

Er, FAIL, unless you're going to tell me what the cause for any particular X chromosome being inactivated or not is that would kinda be the acausal part of the equation.

The main point was that particular example you picked of throwing your twin in to a body of water does not actually say anything about the randomness of evolution by natural selection, because you have two radically different environments with radically different selection criteria into which your identical phenotypes are introduced.

And what does the randomness of evolution by natural selection have to say about my richer twin working in the square mile whilst I work for the Chelsea and Westminster?

Well, living in the same London environment I guess any difference we have in reproductive success will be entirely random. There is clearly absolutely no possibility of gathering any more information that would make the outcome any clearer.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Or, in other words, you still don't quite seem to grasp what COMPLETE knowledge entails.

(HINT: It is a subset of the knowledge it is possible to have about this system.)

In other words, you still don't seem to grasp that the wavefunction does provide complete knowledge of a quantum mechanical system.

(HINT: That knowledge comes in the form of probability distributions.)

Randomness is necessarialy acuasal.

No, it is not.

Er, FAIL, unless you're going to tell me what the cause for any particular X chromosome being inactivated or not is that would kinda be the acausal part of the equation.

It has to do with the competition between the xist binding sites on the chromosome and the the tsix transcripts for the xist transcripts, so it is not acausal.

And what does the randomness of evolution by natural selection have to say about my richer twin working in the square mile whilst I work for the Chelsea and Westminster?

Well, living in the same London environment I guess any difference we have in reproductive success will be entirely random. There is clearly absolutely no possibility of gathering any more information that would make the outcome any clearer.

The fact that you are still defining "environment" as "the surrounding unique to the individual" and "random" as "acausal", then, yes, each individual exists in its own environment and, yes, evolution is not random. However, these are not the definitions mathematicians and scientists tend to use, so you are pretty much having a discussion in your own special world.

 

[cyborg]

In other words, you still don't seem to grasp that the wavefunction does provide complete knowledge of a quantum mechanical system.

Except when it comes to knowing how it will collapse - which you can't know because you're only given probabilitiy distributions to work with.

Most people would be rather unimpressed if you told them you had complete knowledge about a roulette table only for you to respond you know exactly how probably it is the ball will land in any one slot when they're asking to know which slot it will land in.

No, it is not.

Yep.

It has to do with the competition between the xist binding sites on the chromosome and the the tsix transcripts for the xist transcripts, so it is not acausal.

That is not an answer - what causes one or the other to win this competition?

If the answer is "nothing" it is acausal. Otherwise there is a cause.

The fact that you are still defining "environment" as "the surrounding unique to the individual" and "random" as "acausal", then, yes, each individual exists in its own environment and, yes, evolution is not random. However, these are not the definitions mathematicians and scientists tend to use, so you are pretty much having a discussion in your own special world.

****, is that an admission that mijo is trying to make the world be the model?

It is a spectacular omission of reasoning to forget the difference between a model and the thing being modelled so any of the mathematicians and scientists who have forgotten this are making the same mistake.

I suspect, however, that some of them at least would get the point about the "environment" and the fact that species don't really exist and so forth, and haven't forgotten that talking about the world in a different language doesn't change any of the properties of the world.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Randomness is necessarialy acuasal.

Cyborg, you need to read up on things like "necessary cause" vs. "sufficient cause". Fact is random doesn't mean acausal.

 

[cyborg]

Cyborg, you need to read up on things like "necessary cause" vs. "sufficient cause".

Nope.

Fact is random doesn't mean acausal.

Irrelevant.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Irrelevant.

Relevant in that anyone who insists it means acausal is completely unqualified in making statements about the randomness of anything.

 

[cyborg]

Relevant in that anyone who insists it means acausal

It is a necessary property of randomness - otherwise it will not be random, it will be deterministic, with the cause being the determinant.