Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

[articulett]

Actually, I've shown exactly how multiple experts who teach evolution describe the topic... it's a fallacy to think I would say "evolution is non-random"... though that is a lot closer to conveying the natural selection--the key component of evolution-- than saying evolution is random.

Your strawman is noted and dismissed. Your big red Herring giggled at. No biologist will agree that it makes sense to call evolution random. Those who teach evolution go out of their way to show how natural selection brings order to the randomness-- and not "randomly" either. If you want to sound like Behe, be my guest. But if you want to sound like you actually know what you are talking about... I suggest you read those who do instead of imagining you already understand all there is to know on the topic.

It is fascinating how the self appointed experts are so very uninterested on current developments in the field they imagine themselves having expertise in... nor are they ever interested in what the actual experts say, because, apparently, they think they are smarter than them.

 

[cyborg]

Genetic algorithms would work just as well with true random number generators, it is just that would make little practical difference.

That is kinda my point - those obsessed with the "purity" of randomness are obsessed with red herrings.

Genetic algorithms are usually used to evolve code towards specific predesigned criteria, and the code that that is declared unfit is not bred at all.

More than familiar with how they work.

So I will pose the same question I posed to jimbob: what exactly stops me from not specifying a specific predesigned criteria and do you suppose that should cause any great impact on how one should describe the process?

 

[Earthborn]

That is kinda my point - those obsessed with the "purity" of randomness are obsessed with red herrings.

I don't think anyone is obsessed with the purity of randomness, but saying that things that are chaotic and affected by true random factors as the 'butterflies' are "non-random" can be misleading.

So I will pose the same question I posed to jimbob: what exactly stops me from not specifying a specific predesigned criteria and do you suppose that should cause any great impact on how one should describe the process?

"Should" ? I'm not interesting in moral judgements. I don't think there is a single proper way in how one ought to describe the process.

One could describe the process in many different ways, and many different ways would be entirely correct. They may represent different ways of looking at the process. You can look at evolution from the perspective of an individual organism and its chances of reproducing. From that perspective, an organism facing many random threats and opportunities, and sometimes exhibits random behaviour.

You can also look at evolution from the perspective of populations and how they adapt to their environment, something articulett apparently insists we do. From that perspective, natural selection appears non-random if we assume the environment is relatively stable.

Another perspective is that of looking at the entire history of evolution itself and how life copes with quite random climate changes and global catestrophes.

And then there is of course the whole gene-centered view of evolution that is so popular. One view is not wrong because the other is right. But looking at it from a different scale can make things appear random that appear orderly from another.

 

[articulett]

I'm not "apparently insisting" anything... I'm illustrating carefully and repeatedly how the experts convey understanding of evolution and why they--those who teach the subject-- write books and convey their understanding to millions... never refer to evolution as random... and why they find those who do so misleading.

How sad for you to have missed that point in your need to believe that I "insist" on a certain description. I don't insist on a certain description. IThose who do generally insist on the describing evolution as random-- and like T'ai and Behe all the people I know who do so, are creationists (though some deny being creationists.) All those who do so, also pretend that I'm insisting on describing it a certain way while ignoring the fact that I posted 3 peer- reviewed scientist respected in the field on this very subject.

Why the need to mischaracterize me as having motives more obvious in you? Anyone can go back and read the thread and actually see what I've said compared to what you've imagined me "apparently insisting", you know.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But looking at it from a different scale can make things appear random that appear orderly from another.

I think this is the great divide: those who argue that evolution is non-random see its orderly long term behavior and insist that such behavior is non-random. However, since such orderly long-term behavior exists even in the idealized models of probability that assume the random variables under are independently and identically distributed (conditions that I think everyone can are random), the observation of long-term orderliness does not make the process itself non-random.

 

[Belz...]

Sol, back to my points about chaotic systems.

They are significantly affected by random events.

Exactly how is one system "significantly" affected by random events and another isn't ?

Are we still dancing between one definition of "random" and another ?

 

[Belz...]

I'm not "apparently insisting" anything... I'm illustrating carefully and repeatedly how the experts convey understanding of evolution and why they--those who teach the subject-- write books and convey their understanding to millions... never refer to evolution as random... and why they find those who do so misleading.

Articulett, admitting such a thing would mean that they are not "better" than everybody else.

 

[Dancing David]

Sol, back to my points about chaotic systems.

They are significantly affected by random events.

Doesn't this mean that an asteroid in a chaotic Near Earth Orbit is also going to be significantly affected by random events, possibly to such an extent that it might hit either the Earth or Moon (or neither), with vastly different effects on the course of evolution.

Do you see my point about random factors being important over geological timescales?

Not really, sensitive dependence on initial conditions is not dependant on randomness, it is dependant upon the ability to set back to initial conditions. Like the maps of pendulum direction in rotation, they are chaotic, but if one were able to return the pendulum to the same spot (the matter of precision0 then it would end up rotating the same direction.

Same too with your orbital example, it is a deterrministic system, with an unpredictable outcome.

But I myself do view chaotic systems as frequently pseudo random.

To get the issue back on track regards evolution, the genome is blind to the future enviroment, that is why traits that were not impacting reproduction can impact reproduction later, the organism is in a new enviroment.

It doesn't matter that the asteroid is pseudo random in it's impact at all, evolution is what it is. The placement of organisms can be psuedo random regards distribution of traits in an enviroment but the process that leads to reproductive success is deterministic.


So again , you have your chocolate in my peanut butter or you have your peanut butter in my chocolate.

Balloning insects are sort of ranomly dispersed depending on the heigth they reach, however ones they are in the enviroment, eating is determinsitic, the reproduction is deterministic. I am a randomist myself but thanks to Taffer and Articulette I now understand what they mean when they say that natural selection is determined. It is determined, the course of it is effected by random and pseudo random events.

 

[sphenisc]

So I will pose the same question I posed to jimbob: what exactly stops me from not specifying a specific predesigned criteria and do you suppose that should cause any great impact on how one should describe the process?

The fact that "a" is singular and "criteria" is plural.

Or is that a double negative, in which case nothing does - I think.

 

[Wowbagger]

I had pasta in a tomato and pesto sauce for dinner, last night.

I'm sorry! That was completely random.

 

[Wowbagger]

I wanted to reiterate what articulett said: Those who write the most scientifically accepted books about evolution, tend not to describe evolution as random, at all. And, sometimes, they take great pains to show how it is not random. Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker is one, for example. Here is an excerpt from its preface:

It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe. Take, for instance, the issue of 'chance', often dramatized as blind chance. The great majority of people that attack Darwinism leap with almost unseemly eagerness to the mistaken idea that there is nothing other than random chance in it... if you think that Darwinism is tantamount to chance, you'll obviously find it easy to refute Darwinism! One of my tasks will be to destroy this eagerly believed myth that Darwinism is a theory of 'chance'.​

It may still be valid to call Evolution "random" in some contexts of the word. But, I feel that it is best the leave the word out, because of all this confusion it causes. It is perfectly possible to describe every aspect of Evolution with other words besides "random".

 

[jimbob]

Sol, back to my points about chaotic systems.

They are significantly affected by random events.

Doesn't this mean that an asteroid in a chaotic Near Earth Orbit is also going to be significantly affected by random events, possibly to such an extent that it might hit either the Earth or Moon (or neither), with vastly different effects on the course of evolution.

Do you see my point about random factors being important over geological timescales?

Not really, sensitive dependence on initial conditions is not dependant on randomness, it is dependant upon the ability to set back to initial conditions. Like the maps of pendulum direction in rotation, they are chaotic, but if one were able to return the pendulum to the same spot (the matter of precision0 then it would end up rotating the same direction.

I would disagree, because even should you have identical conditions in identical universes, quantum effects would significantly alter the orbits later on. A single atom decaying, or not and eventually the orbits are completely different. Obviously one can't determine the effect of a single quantum event; however these events do not cancel each other out, but cause divergence.

You can assess probabilities of a chaoticly orbiting object being somewhere but if you are talking about far enough into the future, its orbit not only is unpredictible, but as yet undetermined.

In this case I would consider it a significant difference to evolutionary history if an asteroid in a chaotic Near Earth Orbit hit the Moon rather than the Earth.

Even if though some of these events will not be random, the effects will be, as how and which ecological niches are filled will depend on which organism adapts to whichever niche first.

 

[Dancing David]

I would disagree, because even should you have identical conditions in identical universes, quantum effects would significantly alter the orbits later on. A single atom decaying, or not and eventually the orbits are completely different. Obviously one can't determine the effect of a single quantum event; however these events do not cancel each other out, but cause divergence.

Really? A single atom decaying would make a difference in the orbits of what?

Certainly not a planet or even a small asteroid.

You do know what makes Brownian motion don't you? The bumping of molecules in a glass of water for example. You do know that the average is balanced I hope.

Please demonstrate how this alleged effect would work. The mass of Jupiter is the most important factor of motion in large areas of the solar system.

the issue with orbits is not QM but the sensitive dependance of gravitation.

You can assess probabilities of a chaoticly orbiting object being somewhere but if you are talking about far enough into the future, its orbit not only is unpredictible, but as yet undetermined.

So, that does not mean that it is not causal or deterministic. You misread chaos theory, it is about the chaotic behavior of determined and causal systems. They are not random they are chaotic. there is a huge difference. In the pendulum map it is true that the precision with which you return to the initial condition would allow you to recreate the same event.

In this case I would consider it a significant difference to evolutionary history if an asteroid in a chaotic Near Earth Orbit hit the Moon rather than the Earth.

that is silly. Evolution is the water in the puddle, it will act as it acts, you are hung up on contingent history which means you don't understand it. Contingent history means the actual path of events that led to this current situation.

But here is the deal, evolution or adaption through reproductive success doesn't care.

The comet hits or doesn't hit. So what? Organisms that reproduce effectively will contribute a higher percentage of their selfs to the future mix of the population.

So, the comet hit, that is not evolution, that is a path of contingent history. It would not matter to adaptation through reproductive success if the comet hit 500 million years sooner or later , or if it ever hit at all.

The passing of traits through reproductive success still continues.

Even if though some of these events will not be random, the effects will be, as how and which ecological niches are filled will depend on which organism adapts to whichever niche first.

So?
That is the specifics of contingent history, the reproductive success being related to the traits of future populations doesn't care. You will have 'wedging' even when there is no major change in the enviroment, and it counts as well. Species will change very slowly when there is no radiation to new enviroments and the changes in punctuated equilibria but they will still change.

I am a randomist but only because the whole process is blind, traits will not be chosen for until they are in the right enviroment for the reproductive success to matter. So saying which trait will have which benefit is a crap shoot, it can't be predicted.

However the means by which they benefit reproductive success are causal and deterministic. The success of an organism in reproductive is not totaly random, especialy over large numbers of individuals.

Why do insects have resistance to pesticides? reproductive success, the causal nature of their biology says that they will not die and that they will reproduce. So 'resistance' does not 'develop' instead it is passed on through reproduction.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My stamina for this subject are not what they used to be.

~~ Paul

 

[articulett]

My stamina for this subject are not what they used to be.

~~ Paul

And it's a good thing, Paul. Because, like Kleinman, those who insist on calling evolution random must have the last word.

It will go on until they do. Let me ask you this... do you think anyone could convince Behe not to be so hyperfocused on "randomness" in regards to evolution?

Some battles aren't worth fighting, man. Just warn the new people so they temper their expectations. No doubt, this is just a hair of what Dawkins et. al. must contend with. It's hard to remain in good humor after a while...

 

[jimbob]

Dancing david, isn't that a bizare feature of chaotic systems.

To accurately predict a chaotic system with no significant differences far enough into the future, you do hit on the stop-popint of needing accuracy down to the quantum level. This is still considered a theoretical limit to how far you can forcast weather system (although probabilistic assessments could be still valid), and applies to other chaotic systems too.

As you say, Juiiter and the Sun are the biggest influences, but chaotic systems still are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions, and the radiation pressure from a decay event will alter these initial conditions. This will take time for the two otherwiswe identical systems to diverge though....

Even forgetting this, my main point was that should evolution be rerun of five identical Earths, there is no reason for the resulting mixes of ecosystems to be similar. It isn't repeatable on geological timescales.

In stable environments, with stable selective pressures randomness is less important, but over the history of life on Earth, randomness has been important.

Maybe it could help explain my position to give some examples where randomness is important and not:

What will happen to a population of baccteris whose population is controlled by antibiotics? They will evolve antibiotic resistance, nonrandom.

What effect would you expect to see on populations of birds on isolated islands with no predators? Some would lose their filight, as this is energy intensive, and nonflying birds would be more frugal. Nonrandom (probably).

What factors were important in the evoluiton of unicellular life into a T Rex? This needs an acceptance that random events have been important.

 

[cyborg]

This needs an acceptance that random events have been important.

AGAIN:

Does it matter to the description of Evolution?

 

[jimbob]

It matters to a description of the course of evolution over geological time.

 

[cyborg]

It matters to a description of the course of evolution over geological time.

That's a no and a fail at understanding the class/instance distinction.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing david, isn't that a bizare feature of chaotic systems.

To accurately predict a chaotic system with no significant differences far enough into the future, you do hit on the stop-popint of needing accuracy down to the quantum level. This is still considered a theoretical limit to how far you can forcast weather system (although probabilistic assessments could be still valid), and applies to other chaotic systems too.

The quantum mechanics don't matter regards the weather, there are much larger inputs to the system.

Again chaotic systems are causal and determined. Predictability in science and the clockmaker syndrome are two different critters. Prediction in science are almost always going to be a range, not an exact figure.

As you say, Juiiter and the Sun are the biggest influences, but chaotic systems still are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions, and the radiation pressure from a decay event will alter these initial conditions. This will take time for the two otherwiswe identical systems to diverge though....

You are over interpreting sensitive dependance on initial conditions, show nme where a decay event si going to have an impact on the orbit of a 10,000 kg object. You are dwelling on the QM which is immaterial. the orbits are chaotic, you don't need QM to make them unpredictable.

But you can forecast well enough to get a rocket to Pluto.

Even forgetting this, my main point was that should evolution be rerun of five identical Earths, there is no reason for the resulting mixes of ecosystems to be similar. It isn't repeatable on geological timescales.

So, it is still from the intersection of determined and random events, why the watchmaker hang up?

that is not what random is about. There are pseudo random events which impact the world. So?

the factors that leaed to reproductive success are causal. the players and the enviroment are but the combination is pseudo random.

I don't here any one else saying that evolution should meet the clockmaker criteria except for you.

Strawman?

In stable environments, with stable selective pressures randomness is less important, but over the history of life on Earth, randomness has been important.

Not really, it just creates opportunity for radiation of organisms.

Big whoop, the process is simple, organisms that reproduce have more children than those that don't

That is it, there is no more than that.

Maybe it could help explain my position to give some examples where randomness is important and not:

What will happen to a population of baccteris whose population is controlled by antibiotics? They will evolve antibiotic resistance, nonrandom.

What effect would you expect to see on populations of birds on isolated islands with no predators? Some would lose their filight, as this is energy intensive, and nonflying birds would be more frugal. Nonrandom (probably).

That is what is wrong with certain forms of thought. there are many benefits to flight that have nothing to do with predation at all. So one does not know what to expect. It depends on what factors influence reproduction only.

If there are food sources that can flown to then the flight will remain.

What factors were important in the evoluiton of unicellular life into a T Rex? This needs an acceptance that random events have been important.

Not really, what is so random about reproduction?