Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

[cyborg]

That's a Red Herring.

It doesn't matter. The billard balls can only respond to the unfolding situation. That doesn't make their response random. I fail to see why you can't make this distinction.

The response to an event is determined. The occurrence of the event is not. However as the response is determined under indentical sets of events indentical sets of responses occur. It's not hard to understand.

Replace a dice with a list of numbers. Take all your quantum events that affect all your snooker balls and make them the same time after time. Does the same thing happen? Yes.

What is so hard to ****ing understand?

 

[Belz...]

Yes

Uh-huh. The words "random" and "fluctuation" don't appear in that text. Maybe you could cite the relevant passage...

 

[jimbob]

That's a Red Herring.

It doesn't matter. The billard balls can only respond to the unfolding situation. That doesn't make their response random. I fail to see why you can't make this distinction.

The response to an event is determined. The occurrence of the event is not. However as the response is determined under indentical sets of events indentical sets of responses occur. It's not hard to understand.

Replace a dice with a list of numbers. Take all your quantum events that affect all your snooker balls and make them the same time after time. Does the same thing happen? Yes.

What is so hard to ****ing understand?

Why should you:

Replace a dice with a list of numbers. Take all your quantum events that affect all your snooker balls and make them the same time after time. Does the same thing happen? Yes.

The quantum events are not predetermined, they are random. They significantly affect the outcome, making the motion after about 12 collisions random, even in a perfect system, if it obeys the laws of physics. Why is it so wrong to describe the motion as random?

I can also ***** insert rows of ***** asterisks if I want to, but it ** make my *********** *** *** point any better.

 

[sol invictus]

However as the response is determined under indentical sets of events indentical sets of responses occur.

cyborg, I think jimbob's point is that in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM the statement I quoted above is just not correct. Identical circumstances do not lead to identical responses.

The only thing which is determined by the theory are probabilities, and furthermore it can be demonstrated that the probabilistic nature is not due to our ignorance - it is an intrinsic part of the theory. So according to that, the world is truly random at a microscopic level.

 

[jimbob]

Yes Sol, that is my point.

 

[cyborg]

Why should you:

Because I can even if reality can't.

The quantum events are not predetermined, they are random.

Which is irrelevant.

Identical circumstances do not lead to identical responses.

An event is not a circumstance. An event is what arises from circumstances.

Once the event has occurred how it occured it irrelevant to its effects. I do not understand why you cannot understand this.

 

[sol invictus]

An event is not a circumstance. An event is what arises from circumstances.

Once the event has occurred how it occured it irrelevant to its effects. I do not understand why you cannot understand this.

cyborg, read literally you're saying something totally empty - "if the events are the same, the events are the same". I think jimbob was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your statement wasn't tautological.

The issue at stake here is whether, given identical initial conditions, the outcome is the same. The answer is no - in standard interpretations of QM, at least. However this is indeed a red herring, since it is physically impossible to ever know whether the initial conditions are identical, and even in classical physics chaos means the uncertainties will grow exponentially, rendering some outcomes totally unpredictable even in principle.

 

[jimbob]

In this very simple system, you can set up the initial inputs, however there are randomly generated "internal" inputs, which make the outcome random when you look far enough into the future.

 

[cyborg]

The issue at stake here is whether, given identical initial conditions, the outcome is the same.

No, it really isn't.

The issue is that irrespective of the physicality of the situation it is always possible to create a deterministic model.

Recall, if you will, that this discussion is about the Theory of Evolution and describing it. I proposed that the basic relationships were that selection is deterministic with respect to form and mutation is non-deterministic with respect to the encoding of that form. The whole argument over randomness has been about the idea that natural selection is not deterministic. The basic reason for this that has been given is the argument outlined above:

"If you rewind the universe and press play you might not get the same thing."

My point is simply that:

It doesn't matter to the Theory of Evolution one jot.

Natural selection is simply a response to whatever the current situation is. It is not relevant the history of how a form came to exist - it only matters how it responds in the here and now. It matters not a jot if a mass extinction by an asteroid is the result of an atom decaying at an inconvenient time or the result of an alien insect species hurling it across the cosmos - it's still going to have the same effect and whatever forms happen to exist at the time will still have to respond to it and it is still only those who survive who matter.

If it sounds like a tautology then so be it but if the QM argument is solid then I fail to see why it should be possible for me to give the label "deterministic" to any phenomena in this reality.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Uh-huh. The words "random" and "fluctuation" don't appear in that text. Maybe you could cite the relevant passage...

They don't need to. The article explains quite well how the moments of a quantum mechanical distribution converge to the moments of a classical distribution.

 

[jimbob]

Cyborg, how is your approach remotely useful?

It misrepresents how evolution works.

Of course you can creatte fundamentally incorrect models that explain evolutionary history (they are called stories and are popular on bad nature "documentaries"), just as pre-Copernican models described the movement of the planets. It desn't make it right, or any more useful than a simpler, accurate description.

 

[jimbob]

Cyborg, are you claiming that random influences do not affect natural selection?

Back to the discussion about the cod fry...

A cod might produce a million fry, the population of cod is either stable or falling, so on average fewer than one fry per parent reproduces.

I say that any cod that do reprouce are obviously adapted enough, but that they were also lucky, whilst (I think) you claim that they are "fit" and those that fail to reproduce are by definition "unfit".

Again, this doesn't help with understanding, as you have to produce quite eccentric analyses of biology to fit your views. And I can't see how this allows you to accept, let alone quantify selective advantages, which many evolutionary biologists use and discuss (Dawkins included).

 

[Earthborn]

How about "directionless"? I think someone suggested that substitute, at some point.

I don't remember anyone suggesting that (maybe in another thread) but I did write that we can call evolution "random" if we understand "random" as "without definite aim or direction". It was something that articulett disagreed with, because supposedly evolution does have an aim and direction. I don't agree that it does, so "directionless" is fine for me.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I don't remember anyone suggesting that (maybe in another thread) but I did write that we can call evolution "random" if we understand "random" as "without definite aim or direction". It was something that articulett disagreed with, because supposedly evolution does have an aim and direction. I don't agree that it does, so "directionless" is fine for me.

Perhaps you are referring to this exchange with articulett:

Earth born-- there's an aim... pass on your genes... those who don't, don't get to be a part of evolution... bummer. The genes that are best at getting themselves passed on drive evolution and make the process far from "random"...
repeat after me: random components do not a random process make.

ETA-- great Tai Chi' is here... you know you have a winner of a definition and explanation when the omnipresent Tai Chi' weighs in.

If your goal is to sound like Tai Chi and Behe-- just keep insisting that evolution is random and that somehow to someone you make more sense than Dawkins and all those who teach the subject to actual other people.

Natural selection is the "derandomizer"-- the mechanism that gives the appearance of design and the look that things somehow "knew" what features to evolve.

Earth born-- there's an aim... pass on your genes...

Is that an aim, or is it just a result? And if it is an aim, whose aim is it? Is it God's aim? Is the aim of the organism carrying the genes who does not even know what genes are? Is it the aim of the genes, that don't have the mechanism to have 'aims' at all?

By introducing an 'aim' you are making a teleological argument instead of a cause and effect argument, which is generally frowned upon in the natural sciences. But who knows, maybe stones do fall back to Earth because they tend to move towards their natural place...

those who don't, don't get to be a part of evolution... bummer.

Untrue. They are part of evolution, they just don't pass on their genes. But they do shape the environment in which others do pass on genes.

The genes that are best at getting themselves passed on drive evolution and make the process far from "random"...

Which genes are best at getting themselves pass on depends on the environment, which is constantly changing.

repeat after me: random components do not a random process make.

What if all components are subject to random changes?

That doesn't make the process random. If you aim to sound clear then use the words of those who convey the concept to others. If you aim to sound like T'ai-- refer to evolution as random. Processes are "steps in a procedure" one built upon the other... randomness is not related to past or future... Theoretically all things made of matter have random electron spins in their atoms... but who declares every thing random? And why would they?

Aim or direction applies to things without consciousness-- like wind or shooting starts or galaxies...it doesn't need to be conscious... it's just that physical laws make it so. Water and cold weather make lattices that form ice. It's a process. No one would call it random.

The same with evolution. Genes don't choose to get passed on... but those that do manage to do so drive evolution... the organism copying the DNA dies... but the information lives on to be copied again and possibly pick up a beneficial mutation in the process. It isn't random. No one who wants to convey what evolution actually is or help anyone else understand it, wouldn't describe it that way. It's a useless definition.

As Sol said, it's like picking up an apple and saying "this is something"... it's true... but uninformative. It's less useful than saying "evolution is a 4 syllable word"-- because while also being true... that doesn't have nearly the power to mislead or to be interpreted as "scientists think this all came about by random chance." Mijo's blather does. If your goal is to discuss evolution with Mijo, T'ai and Behe-- then by all means... you are doing a fabulous job. And an apple truly is something. And poker IS random per Mijo's definition.

Just don't expect anyone intelligent to think you actually understand the process or could correctly teach it to anyone else. You can't. You couldn't anymore than the person calling an apple a "something" could teach about apples. For the same reasons. It's equally uninformative and misleading. You end up wondering the motives of the person doing the describing -- if not their mental capacity. Really.

You can argue all you want and ask all the questions that you have... but that's the bottom line.

 

[articulett]

I don't remember anyone suggesting that (maybe in another thread) but I did write that we can call evolution "random" if we understand "random" as "without definite aim or direction". It was something that articulett disagreed with, because supposedly evolution does have an aim and direction. I don't agree that it does, so "directionless" is fine for me.

Really, you don't need to reinterpret my words... I feel like I say them just fine, and you interpret them wrong. Moreover, I think the people you are responding to interpret me just fine, and don't need your translations.

The "aim" of a gene is to get the most copies of itself in the environment... the genes that make the most reproductively successful organisms, multiply exponentially. In that way, the direction is towards more and more refined and honed genomes for a given environment over time. It's not a "plan" or "direction" as humans think of it... but it is a direction... just as orbital paths are directions...

Please don't try and tell others what I am saying. I consider you too ignorant to understand what I am saying much less to rephrase it and toss it off to others. I teach evolution. I understand those who teach it. I pass board exams on the subject. I read and understand peer reviewed articles on the subject. I understand why it's misleading and uninformative to call evolution random. I think those who do always have some bizarre reason for doing so that they never quite say. There are tons of great ways to describe evolution... why anyone would insist on calling it "random" despite the experts finding that incorrect is beyond me. But not really. I think I do know the reason. I suspect it's the same reason that Behe has. Gee, why would Behe (and T'ai) not listen to the experts on the subject or even Darwin when describing evolution? Why would they give an explanation that makes the main idea-- "natural selection" incoherent?? Hmmmmm

Does anyone think the self appointed experts are conveying evolution... particularly natural selection well? Does any expert on the topic sound so muddled and vague and obfuscating?

When you claim I said something I did not say or have motives I do not have that is "fighting a straw man" to avoid the fact that your argument fails.

A popular and useful definition of evolution that doesn't confuse like using "random" is:

Change in allele frequencies over time due to (or as determined by)natural selection.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Change in allele frequencies over time due to (or as determined by)natural selection.

It ain't evolution as we know it without mutation. Genetic drift is also part of evolution, but usually considered seperate from natural selection.

Walt

 

[Earthborn]

I consider you too ignorant to understand what I am saying much less to rephrase it and toss it off to others. I teach evolution. I understand those who teach it.

You also have claimed that your way of describing it causes the least amount of misunderstanding among laypeople with no prior understanding of evolutionary theory... and yet you manage to be misunderstood and misinterpreted quite frequently. Could it be that you don't understand those you are teaching?

I understand why it's misleading and uninformative to call evolution random.

I think everyone in this thread understands why calling evolution random can be misleading. It is just that some of us are saying that there is nothing special about the word "random" and that other terms can be just as misleading, which means that the word shouldn't be taboo just because it is misleading.

It is already pointed out to you that the use of the word "theory" can be misleading to laypeople. That's no reason to not use it.

Dawkins, in a quote above calls the theory of evolution "Darwinism" -- a term more often favoured by creationists than evolutionists -- which can also be very misleading it makes it appear all evolutionary theory comes from Darwin and is an -ism, like Marxism, capitalism or Islamism: a political philosophy. Yet I haven't heard you protesting that term; probably because you consider Dawkins too much of an authority to question his choices of words.

The "aim" of a gene is to get the most copies of itself in the environment... the genes that make the most reproductively successful organisms, multiply exponentially. In that way, the direction is towards more and more refined and honed genomes for a given environment over time. It's not a "plan" or "direction" as humans think of it... but it is a direction... just as orbital paths are directions...

Calling it a "direction" is one thing, but using the word "aim" is very misleading and I think quite simply wrong.

I think those who do always have some bizarre reason for doing so that they never quite say.

Try not to appear paranoid.

Why would they give an explanation that makes the main idea-- "natural selection" incoherent?? Hmmmmm

It doesn't make natural selection incoherent. It shows what natural selection's options come from and what its criteria are.

Does anyone think the self appointed experts are conveying evolution... particularly natural selection well?

Yes.

Does any expert on the topic sound so muddled and vague and obfuscating?

I think you do.

Change in allele frequencies over time due to (or as determined by)natural selection.

That is certainly a fine definition, for a narrow aspect of evolution. I disagree that it won't cause any confusion among laypeople with no prior understanding of evolutionary theory; how many of those understand what you mean with "allele frequencies" or "natural selection" ?

 

[cyborg]

Cyborg, are you claiming that random influences do not affect natural selection?

No. This isn't anything to do with what I'm saying at all.

I say that any cod that do reprouce are obviously adapted enough, but that they were also lucky, whilst (I think) you claim that they are "fit" and those that fail to reproduce are by definition "unfit".

No.

My point is whilst you can describe one cod and lucky and another as not you could also describe it as "this cod was here, which is where a predator was too - bad for the cod, good for the predator".

Saying it is simply "bad luck" is missing half the story.

 

[jimbob]

And saying that chance wasn't involved, also misses a significant part of the story, especially as the odds of an individual cod fry reproducing are of the order of 500,000:1 against. The fry could have traits that make it a thousand times more likely to reproduce, and it would still only have about a 0.2% chance of reproducing. If it did breed, and half its fry also had these traits, then you would expect about 500 offspring to reproduce, and the trait would spread.

Of course, in reality, beneficial mutations are only likely to give a few percent advantage. This is enough for evolution to work, but whether an individual trait spreads form its original parent has to be largely influenced by chance.

 

[cyborg]

And saying that chance wasn't involved, also misses a significant part of the story, especially as the odds of an individual cod fry reproducing are of the order of 500,000:1 against.

Uh no. Chance is just a way of describing your ignorance over which cod fry will survive but expressing your knowledge about how many are likely to be killed.

If all the predators were, for example, devastated by some disease your chance reproduction figures would become quite meaningless because they are not based on some fundamental property of the cod nor of the universe but on the avergage properties of the environment the cod find themselves in.