Randomness in Evolution: Valid and Invalid Usage

[articulett]

The way you describe it sounds muddled... the same way it sounds muddle to say that Poker is played probabilistically. It's not wrong. It's just that the information you are conveying with your continual need to focus on probabilities in evolution is equally as misleading and uninformative as focusing on such in regards to explaining what poker is.

Yes, probabilities are involved... but ... your focus there makes you fail at conveying useful meaning. I imagine you'd be equally as maddening if you were trying to teach Poker to people and kept saying-- "it's random, because it's based on probabilities because you can never tell how a hand will be played and the same hands can be played different ways".

You truly are that vague and muddled sounding on a much more important topic than Poker... and you are muddled in a way that makes you sound more like Behe than the experts who teach the concept to many.

 

[jimbob]

What is muddled about the barn-owl example?

Barn Owls could have (say) 12 chicks per parent.
In some areas the population of barn owls is stable.
This means that on average, one offspring per parent reproduces.
Most owlets will be similar to their parents.

I would argue that once you have removed "runts" or other grossly unfit owlets, most would be fairly similar, so an "average" owlet might have (say) a 10% chance of reproducing.

This means that any individual beneficial trait is unlikely to spread. However, over the entire population, some will do so. It also means that deleterious traits are likely to die out very quickly. A 10 % increase in "fitness" gives an 11% chance of reproducing, whilst a 10% decrease gives a 9% chance of reproducing.

Chance is more important in determining which owlets survive than subtle differences in traits. That doesn't mean that you can't assess which traits are beneficial, but at that level of detail, you need a probabilistic treatment of natural selection.

Especially the point that "Chance is more important in determining which owlets survive than subtle differences in traits."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

ETA:

How do you describe what, "a selective pressure of as little as 1:1000" actually means without invoking probabilities?

 

[articulett]

Why do you need to when discussing evolution... it's the aggregate of beneficial traits multiplied exponentially over time that matters to the equation... just like winning multiple poker hands makes someone a winner--

The DNA that gets itself copied the most--whatever the reasons-- determinisn, chance, or something you wouldn't call either-- are the winners in evolution. Coding for life forms that are fecund is a pretty good strategy as far as DNA getting copied. Inserting your DNA into a vector works well for ervs. There's a whole bunch of techniques that have evolved, because THEY COULD... and they success was self replicating...

You just seem to always want to jump into the middle of specific example in order to call evolution random or probabilistic. Your owl example doesn't describe evolution... it illustrates (in a sort of muddy way )that there are selective pressures that humans might consider random... but those selection pressures ("random" or not) still determine who will go on to the next round. The selection process (no matter how it happens) culls from the pool of randomness. To confuse it with the pool of randomness makes you sound like someone who would describe playing poker using a barn owl population growth analogy.

Your need to describe things in terms of possibilities makes it so that you are only making sense in your head. To everyone else, you are saying a muddled mouthful of nothingness and confusing the definition or model for a specific example, therein.

If someone asked you what a grocery store is-- you wouldn't bend over back wards to make sure you used "random" or "probability" in the descriptor. You wouldn't focus on probabilities... you wouldn't describe a single example as though that was "the descriptor" (rather than "an example") of grocery stores.

Yet, for evolution, you just keep going on the same loop. Why? You make those exact errors (or whatever you want to call them) in your description. It's not "wrong". But who would insist on telling people what Poker or Grocery Stores or what anything is by insisting on defining it in regards to probability??? Why must you?

Creationists do this for evolution so that they can pretend that scientists think that "this all came about by chance"-- the 747 straw man. I really don't know why you keep doing it. But I find it bizarre, to say the least. It's like Mijo. Maybe someone somewhere understands you and your motivation or thinks you are clear. I'm pretty sure that I'm describing what I hear from you the way most experts on the subject would.

Why would someone insist on describing evolution the way known creationists are known to muddle? Why would they continually prefer such an explanation when the experts who have taught many have provided such eloquent examples?

 

[Beerina]

Here is a thread to discuss how the word "random" applies, or does not apply, to the Theory of Evolution, depending on how you define the word, and stuff like that.

Your thoughts?

"Random" is mis-used by anti-evolutionists to suggest rearranging a bunch of atoms or molecules randomly, and, boing! Out pops a frog or bird or human.

Which, of course, is statistically rediculous.


With respect to evolution, there are several areas of "randomness". But first, what does "randomness" buy for evolution?

It buys a way to alter the organism, which may be beneficial in the environment (whether the environment is changing or not), or detrimental, or completely and rapidly deadly as some defect, like a hole in the heart.

In more mathematical terms, think of the organism as being like a point on a flat sheet with dimples and mountains in it. It's similar to those demonstrations of gravity and black holes with huge dents in it that the steel ball rolls around and around and down into. The point on that grid for the organism corresponds to its current set of features as it developed and lived its life.

When the organism has a child that's different, it's like another point a little bit away from the first point. It may be nearer a hill or nearer a valley. We will assume for now a hill is a good development and a valley a bad one.

So if the new point is on a hill, it will probably survive slightly better, and thus have more children, also near to it, some even further up the hill. And those children have even more, based on how far they are up the hill. Soon the average of the whole population is centered around the top of the hill.

If it's further down a valley, it has a harder time surviving and reproducing, and thus fewer children, and thus less impact on future generations.


So far so good.

Now back to randomness. The "randomness" of an adaptation would correspond roughly to how far a child's point might be from its parent's on this hill-and-mountain grid plane.


There are several kinds of random changes:

1. Chemical errors caused by molecules like those in DNA not splitting and recombining "properly". This is a physical system after all, and **** happens.

2. Errors due to radiation that causes #1, or, even worse, causes an atom of one element to spontaneously transform to an atom of another, throwing off the DNA chemistry.

3. Sexual reproduction -- swapping of DNA slices between two successful organisms. Certain aspects are randomized in a very structured way, such as this or that bone length, other features, chemistry of the liver, etc.


The first two "random" changes are fairly rare, and also are probably far more likely to generate a seriously disabled or stillborn child when they do occur. As such, they would move the population's average point across that hill-and-valley plane much more slowly.

The last, sexual reproduction (which itself evolved) can scour this plane far, far more quickly. "Slightly taller, slightly smaller, slightly different chemistry, etc." can make noticeable and rapid changes that impact successful reproduction much more quickly. This is why humans could turn wolves into a hundred breeds of cutie-pie dogs in a few thousand years, or grass and berries into corn and tomatoes, for that matter.


In summary, "randomness" in evolution means the rate at which the species scours this "hill and valley" plane through the generations. There are several ways to introduce change into the next generation, with sexual reproduction scouring this grid plane far faster than old-school random mutations (which creationists misuse, suggesting it's the only thing at work).

The development of intelligence allows even faster scouring of this space as it added immensly to the survival capacity of species. It invents treatments and cures that shift the survival "point" up the hill, away from where the pure DNA would suggest the child organism should be.

And human-level intelligence, when it gets around to inventing custom-designed genes, will turn the speed of scouring into a rocket. We will be able to directly set the point of the next "child" wherever we like.

 

[jimbob]

Why do you need to when discussing evolution... it's the aggregate of beneficial traits multiplied exponentially over time that matters to the equation... just like winning multiple poker hands makes someone a winner--

The DNA that gets itself copied the most--whatever the reasons-- determinisn, chance, or something you wouldn't call either-- are the winners in evolution. Coding for life forms that are fecund is a pretty good strategy as far as DNA getting copied. Inserting your DNA into a vector works well for ervs. There's a whole bunch of techniques that have evolved, because THEY COULD... and they success was self replicating...

The OP was when it was valid to talk about randomness in discussing evolution.

I contend that my barn-owl example above is a perfectly valid area of discussion, and a situation where a probabilistic treatment is appropriate.

You just seem to always want to jump into the middle of specific example in order to call evolution random or probabilistic. Your owl example doesn't describe evolution... it illustrates (in a sort of muddy way )that there are selective pressures that humans might consider random... but those selection pressures ("random" or not) still determine who will go on to the next round. The selection process (no matter how it happens) culls from the pool of randomness. To confuse it with the pool of randomness makes you sound like someone who would describe playing poker using a barn owl population growth analogy.

Firstly the barn owl example was an example, not an analogy. This is an important difference. The example was a description of how natural selection actually works in practice.

I apologise for sounding slightly rude here, but this is where I suspect there is a slight cultural difference.

To me, "the pool of randomness" sounds unclear and muddy. As I said before, and with the numerical examples, to illustrate this, there is a differnce between the "type of randomness" in mutation and natural selection. I wouldn't describe natural selection as hapazard, but would be happy to describe mutation as haphazard. I also wouldn't describe mutation as probabilistic, because "haphazard", conveys a slightly different nuance.

As you are probably aware, I am a physicist by training and an engineer by profession. There are manu aspects of the device development that require statistical treatments of the results (chip-yields being the obvious one).

Putting numbers on scenerios and working out the implications is one thing that most engineers are particularly happy with; in fact I would say it is one of the most important aspects to "thinking like an engineer" (some engineers mightn't do this, but then they should consider a different career).

To me, and other people with a background in physical sciences, the numbers are not muddy; indeed, an appropriate quantitive treatment is superior to a qualitative treatment by virtue of describing the system more fully, and simply.​

Of course this only works in a situation where people are happy using numbers in this manner, but I would contend that the opposite approach (which you seem to be happier with) hides important aspects, as you are either forced into inaccurate generalisations, or very long explanations.

Your need to describe things in terms of possibilities makes it so that you are only making sense in your head. To everyone else, you are saying a muddled mouthful of nothingness and confusing the definition or model for a specific example, therein.

To you maybe, but I doubt that other people find this so confusing.

It is one example, but this is simply an illustration of the general principle. If you work through the numbers, you find that this is the situation for the vast majority of organisms in the vast majority of situations. The numbers might be different, but I think that there is an important conclusion that can be drawn.

This is that: With the exception of 'abnormal' offspring, differences in fitness are less important than chance in determining which individual organisms actually reproduce. Overall in the population, 'unfit traits' will vanish quickly, and some 'fit traits' will proliferate, but many 'fit traits' will fail, simply due to chance. .

Further to that, if you are talking about stable ecosystems, and moderate timescales, with suitable populations, you can then ignore randomness, as organisms will evolve that are adapted to their envitronment. You can even make statements that particular adaptations will tend to evolve in particular enviornments. Again without mentioning randomness. However This is only one part of evolution.

Over long timescales, the chaotic nature of the ecosystem will begin to have an effect, and the selective pressures, i.e. the direction of evolution will be subject to random change.

If someone asked you what a grocery store is-- you wouldn't bend over back wards to make sure you used "random" or "probability" in the descriptor. You wouldn't focus on probabilities... you wouldn't describe a single example as though that was "the descriptor" (rather than "an example") of grocery stores.

Yet, for evolution, you just keep going on the same loop. Why? You make those exact errors (or whatever you want to call them) in your description. It's not "wrong". But who would insist on telling people what Poker or Grocery Stores or what anything is by insisting on defining it in regards to probability??? Why must you?

I am not sure what you are gatting at here, I really can't see where I have made any "errors", or how you can avoid a probabilistic treatment.

Both Dawkins and Maynard Smith write about "selective advantage" and quantify them. How do you use a selective advantage of 1:1000 without a probabilistic tratment?

I'm sorry if you did answer this question, buyt I can't actually see it anywhere.

Maybe suitable for a primary-school explanation

Creationists do this for evolution so that they can pretend that scientists think that "this all came about by chance"-- the 747 straw man. I really don't know why you keep doing it. But I find it bizarre, to say the least. It's like Mijo. Maybe someone somewhere understands you and your motivation or thinks you are clear. I'm pretty sure that I'm describing what I hear from you the way most experts on the subject would.

Why would someone insist on describing evolution the way known creationists are known to muddle? Why would they continually prefer such an explanation when the experts who have taught many have provided such eloquent examples?

You have equated technological development to evolution, which is what Dembski is in favour of. Please show me a creationist using my arguments.

Why would someone insist on describing evolution the way known creationists are known to muddle?

 

[articulett]

No Jimbob... I think I'm bowing out... you are impenetrable.

Yes, I was very clear... as is Dawkins and many experts I quoted on how the evolution of technology, design, language, etc. is akin to evolution of genomes... they are both information systems that are copied in units that are then modified such that the whole "evolves" over time--the environment selects (DETERMINES) what "memes" evolve over time... whether those memes are airplane designs, computer languages, or technological advances. Cyborg understand me. Dawkins uses the terminology. My students understand. I find them all clearer on the subject and brighter than you. This is NOT what Dembski says and repeating that he does over and over along with his muddled quote on the subject is only convincing you. No one but you thinks Dembski is saying what I have said. All the experts understand well what I am talking about. As do most of the forum members here. I'm not making stuff up... I am quoting those who taught me-- who teach others... who understand the subject. You are pulling stuff out of your ass and pretending to have expertise. And multiple people have called you on it.

Like Earthborn, and Mijo, please don't "sum up" what you think I'm saying. My words speak quite well for themselves. And your straw men sound like all your explanations... muddled and imagining expertise that no one but you seems to see-- and unfixable, to boot. You don't understand my words. So don't paraphrase them and assume you've understood and that you are explaining something to someone else. We've not shown that you have any special ability at explaining, understanding, nor analogies-- have we? As far as I can tell, your expertise on these subjects is in your head.

You are mad at me... but I and cyborg and many have spent a lot of careful detailed time trying to show you where you are muddled sounding and why you sound like Behe and why the experts are so much clearer than you... and why your summation of what others are saying is wrong-- stupid, even... misleading... just like your description of evolution. You can fix it... but as far as I can tell no one but you thinks you are clearer or making more sense than the actual experts--which have been oft quoted-- yet you never really read them.

And yet you read and quote Demski and imagine that he's making sense and that he's saying what I'm saying. HMMM....

Does anyone other than Mijo share this delusion of yours? Just curious. I think I'll stick with the actual experts. They seem so much smarter, comprehensible, and even more humble than you. I don't care what your job is or your imagined expertise. You suck at explaining and describing evolution. You don't seem to really understand it. My high school students could probably explain it much more clearly than you. Yes probabilities matter-- but stick to the way the experts describe things... I've quoted multiple experts. I've also quoted Behe. I can't imagine why one would prefer to sound so much like the latter than the former and your semantics and tangents haven't clarified. WHO are you clearer to-- about what exactly?

You get to win (in your head) as always--by getting the last word. But it still doesn't make you clear, right, or educable on the subject. --And you go back on my ignore list, because you fling straw men and play that self serving ego building game where you are winning points in a conversation that no one but you seems to be having or understanding. I don't know how to fix that. I don't think it is fixable. I just think you and Mijo (and few others) have a need to get the last word and that last word must be on par with Behe's description of evolution as "random" or "scientists think this all came about randomly".

I'd wonder if the problem was me, but this is such a character trait of creationists who pretend they are not creationists, that I"m more than certain the problem is you. And I have yet to see anyone who has this random fixation as strong as Behe (and you do) change.

 

[jimbob]

Articulett I am going to respond to your post, because you obviously were addressing comments at me.

Unlike you, I have never claimed to be an expert, simply numerate. Most of your posts seem to contain allusions to what other people say, but precious few actual arguments, or detailed rebuttals of points.

Here is an example of your muddled thinking, part of the post is hidden for ease of reading. You don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between Darwinian evolution as occurs in biology, and colloquial use of the word "evolution" in everyday speach.

Jim-Bob...
in the nozzle example--you could have weird artifacts or stupid engineers that occasionally through out models that were better and it would change nothing about the definition...the evolution...what evolution is. You are using these kinds of examples to say that selection is "probabalistic" or non-random... Do you understand how these examples are tangential to the definition as to what IS going on... moreover... this doesn't mean they've come up with the best possible design or that one of the one's they discarded might have something that worked better somewhere along the evolutionary process had they kept it.

You and mijo are confusing this sort of tangential detail so that you can define evolution as random. Whether it's the nozzle or the life form--it's evolving based on information that has proven successful before. That's it. Cities evolve...everyone who comes through it is involved in the design...the people who settled first have no idea what will evolve--the people adding homes or business or communities are building on what has evolved up to the present. Obsolete buildings are destroyed. Roads are widened. Cell phone towers are added. No single person is more complex than the city itself just as no single person is more complex than the internet.
Both evolve based on what is there to build upon...what worked before...what "stuck around"... all participants are designers of the evolving entity.

All life forms today are the result of eons of successful reproductions. All ecosystems today are the result of unplanned co-evolving of environment and the organisms that inhabit them. As much as you might think people are designing things like Jet fighters--they aren't designing them from scratch--they are using info. that worked before and recombining it or altering it to see if something better results. INFORMATION...changes "randomly"--the results are then culled so that the best (or luckiest, or prickliest, or worst tasting, or most anti-biotic resistant, or horniest, or most useful) survive.

All human knowledge has evolved on knowledge accumulated by humans past and present. All life forms have evolved based on accumulated information of histories "successes".

In case you miss the fundamental difference: cities do not "evolve" in the darwinian sense.

Not all iterative development processes are evolution.

I think I was getting you and Cyborg muddled up, he said that aircraft designs evolve. You said that cities evolve.

Nope. Aircraft do not evolve. They sit around or they get flown around.

Aircraft designs are a different matter.

If anything, classical design techniques (i.e. not using evolutionary algrithms) might have some common features with lamarckian evolution, but this is a theory of evolution that was discredited by darwinian evolution. It is pretty poor to pretend that this is similar to biological evolution.

 

[jimbob]

You get to win (in your head) as always--by getting the last word. But it still doesn't make you clear, right, or educable on the subject. --And you go back on my ignore list, because you fling straw men and play that self serving ego building game where you are winning points in a conversation that no one but you seems to be having or understanding. I don't know how to fix that. I don't think it is fixable. I just think you and Mijo (and few others) have a need to get the last word and that last word must be on par with Behe's description of evolution as "random" or "scientists think this all came about randomly".

I'd wonder if the problem was me, but this is such a character trait of creationists who pretend they are not creationists, that I"m more than certain the problem is you. And I have yet to see anyone who has this random fixation as strong as Behe (and you do) change.

The same could be said of you with more justification:

"I am going to direct this post at and say that I am putting you on ignore, so in my head I do have the last word"

I also mentioned Dembski, bacause I got a little bored of your insinuating (without evidence) that I sounded like Behe. Whilst you have talked about the "evolution" of manmade artifacts (cities) and Dembski talks about "technological evolution".

 

[cyborg]

I still don't think you know what Lamarckian evolution is - it isn't the "opposite" of Darwinian evolution in that it is somehow "directed" by "non-randomness," rather the idea was that morphogenic change in an individual was inheritable - i.e. if you change your body by working out then the improvements you've made to your body are heritable traits.

 

[jimbob]

The organism changed in response to the environment and this change was transmitted to its offspring.

The giraffe wanted to reach high up branches, so it stretched its neck so its offspring had longer necks.

The prototype aircraft showed weakness in part of its fusalage, so the next design iteration was strengthened in this area.

Completely unlike darwinian evolution.

Evolutionary algorithms, however do have similarities.

 

[cyborg]

The organism changed in response to the environment and this change was transmitted to its offspring.

Completely unlike darwinian evolution.

Well no actually - it is not "completely" unlike darwinian evolution. Change "organism" for "population" and "its" for "their".

Evolutionary algorithms, however do have similarities.

Except that the determinism of the algorithm constructs a fatalistic scenario that makes you uncomfortable right?

 

[jimbob]

The organism changed in response to the environment and this change was transmitted to its offspring.

Completely unlike darwinian evolution.

Well no actually - it is not "completely" unlike darwinian evolution. Change "organism" for "population" and "its" for "their".

Why is this valid?

Evolutionary algorithms, however do have similarities.

Except that the determinism of the algorithm constructs a fatalistic scenario that makes you uncomfortable right?

That is one of the diffeerences, however there are also obvious similarities that are lacking in classical design with "intelligently directed" alterations.

When you debug a computer programme, do you randomly change the code, or do you look at the errors and try to work out what you need to change, and how?


An evolutionary algorithm would make random alterations and breed from the code examples that performed closest to the requirements. This is obviously closer to darwinian evolution than classical design methodologies, but it isn't darwinian evolution, as it the selection criteria have been intelligently chosen so that the result is something that meets the predefined performance requirements.

With imperfect self-replication, where the imperfection is random, darwininan evolution will follow. Also the offspring of the replicators will alter the fitness landscape for the other replicators, so there are complex feedback loops, and the fitness landscape is will be chaotic. In other words it could well be stable for long periods of time, but will be subject to random changes.

This is what happens in evolution, and is inherent in any system of imperfect self-replicaton with the imperfections being random.

"Chaotic" is probably a better word than random, but chaotic systems are random over long enough timescales.

 

[cyborg]

Why is this valid?

Why isn't it?

When you debug a computer programme, do you randomly change the code, or do you look at the errors and try to work out what you need to change, and how?

Straw man noted.

the selection criteria have been intelligently chosen so that the result is something that meets the predefined performance requirements.

YES OR NO:

Selection criteria must be intelligently chosen.

This is what happens in evolution, and is inherent in any system of imperfect self-replicaton with the imperfections being random.

Well no - because as you've refused to acknowledge for metaphysical rather than mathematical reasons the "randomness" of the "imperfections" is totally irrelevant to the behaviour of the system.

"Chaotic" is probably a better word than random, but chaotic systems are random over long enough timescales.

I see for you "random" is a synonym for "not fatalistic" - even when the mathematics demands otherwise.

 

[articulett]

genomes are equivalent to other forms of information in regards to the analogy-- whether computer code, product design, or technological specifications... phenotypes compete in the environment as do other products of information whereby the ones that are best at getting their information copied (per whatever reasons) have information that gets to evolve and code for future "designs".

What evolves is determined by the information that gets copied the most. Who cares if the information changes randomly or purposefully or some weird combination of both or through artificial selection or asteroids or radiation or floods? The resulting products can only be selected by the surviving and best replicating information--whether it's DNA or qwerty keyboard designs.

Jimbob is ever confusing the code for the thing it codes for. In Lamarkian evolution, Giraffes would somehow "know" to grow longer necks... that's how it looks to humans... but what happens is that those without longer necks don't produce as many offspring compared to their longer necked herd members who have a competition advantage in food acquisition and mating opportunities-- and thus more opportunities to pass on those longer necked genes as well as subsequent neck lengthening mutations.

Lamarkian evolution would be if you tricked an airplane in a way and airplanes began to start appearing with those traits even though nothing or no one selected for tweaks to the design specifications so that they could appear with those traits.

A species dies the same species they are born. Some or all of their genomic information may be copied and tweaked in the process... it may be copied a little or a lot-- the more it's copied, the greater the chance for that copied bit of information to become a part of an evolving species or organism. This is true with language, airplane designs, computer languages, computer programs, etc. When it comes to copying things other than genes, humans are the replicators and the "mutators" and the selectors for the most part-- We evolved brains that evolved to be information users.

In my opinion, religion and creationism hijack these tendencies to spread themselves (the information that makes up the "belief system")... just like gonorrhea harnesses the human sex drive to spread itself (the information in it's genes).

It sterilizes their vectors so they can't copy their own genes/memes-- instead they are stuck propagating the info. in the clever interloper.

(my clarification is for anyone who actually wants to know what Jim is referring to regarding his straw man interpretation of my views... I don't think Jim is really communicating with anyone however... his expertise on the subject appears to exist entirely in his head.)

 

[jimbob]

The organism changed in response to the environment and this change was transmitted to its offspring.

Completely unlike darwinian evolution.

Well no actually - it is not "completely" unlike darwinian evolution. Change "organism" for "population" and "its" for "their".

Why is this valid?
Why isn't it?

Because you changed the mechanism.

 

[cyborg]

Because you changed the mechanism.

No, I changed the plurarity.

 

[jimbob]

Why is this valid?

Why isn't it?

When you debug a computer programme, do you randomly change the code, or do you look at the errors and try to work out what you need to change, and how?

Straw man noted.

How is that a straw man: I am arguing that technological development is not a good analogy for darwinina evolution because the mechanisms are significantly different. The example is an example of how this differs from an evolutionary approach in a particular field of technical development. I could have chosen many others but it was not a weakened or absurd statement of your argument, but an example where the tow processes differ.

the selection criteria have been intelligently chosen so that the result is something that meets the predefined performance requirements.

YES OR NO:

Selection criteria must be intelligently chosen.

Yes, that was my point. In evolutionary algorithms there are intelligently chosen selection criteria. In darwinian evolution there are no externally applied selection criteria, simply success or failure in reproduction (or self-replication).

This is what happens in evolution, and is inherent in any system of imperfect self-replicaton with the imperfections being random.

Well no - because as you've refused to acknowledge for metaphysical rather than mathematical reasons the "randomness" of the "imperfections" is totally irrelevant to the behaviour of the system.

"Chaotic" is probably a better word than random, but chaotic systems are random over long enough timescales.

I see for you "random" is a synonym for "not fatalistic" - even when the mathematics demands otherwise.

I don't really understand your point here:

The compressed works of Shakespere are no more nor less random than the uncompressed works. A process where the outcome is significantly altered by random events is random.

 

[Wowbagger]

If we accept evolution as a chaotic system, like the weather, I am willing to agree that the word "random", when defined appropriately in the context of chaotic systems, is another valid usage of the word.

Trying to read through Jimbob's posts, he may or may not have described everything effectively. But, does anyone generally disagree with the above statement?

 

[cyborg]

Yes, that was my point. In evolutionary algorithms there are intelligently chosen selection criteria

You didn't answer my question.

YES OR NO:

Selection criteria must be intelligently chosen.

 

[jimbob]

This is a derail, but you seem quite insistent, even though this has been covered before.

In technological development not biological evolution, if you want to use a genetic algorithm to develop something useful, then you need to
impose a set of selection criteria so that the result meets the requirement specifications.

You could use an evolutionary algorithm to choose what the requirements are, however all you are doing is shifting your choice of selection criteria, as you then need to decide on the criteria for the original evolutionary algorithm.

So in any realistic example of technological development that I can think of, you do need to assign selection criteria, or you will not have an evolutionary algorithm.

In biological evolution this is not the case. If a self-replicating system manages to self-replicate, then it is obviously adequately adapted to its environment. It has "passed" the "selection test". This is all that natural selection is. A self-replicating system that fails to replicate will not produce any descendants to evolve further.

Simple application of Malthusian reasoning will show that self-replicating systems are going to be subject to natural selection, as, if nothing else limits their population growth, they will eventually be limited by resources. If the self-replication is imperfect, then the variants that are "fitter" will thrive at the expense of those that are less well-adapted. This is not just akin to Darwinian evolution, it is Darwinian evolution.

I have answered your question several times, now are you going to answer mine about how the phrase "a selective advantage of 1:1000" is not part of a probabilistic treatment of natural selection?