What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

I believe that by far the most likely probability is that the theory of evolution is correct, given the probability of minor errors in timing or some steps. The general outline though I believe is as true as gravity. There is a very small possibility that our existence and the apparent age of our perceivable universe is artificial, created by one or more beings with the power to do so.

Assuming that our estimate age of our perceivable universe is roughly correct and that it was not created out of nothingness a mere 10,000 years ago by some superpower, then the probability of the theory of evolution becomes even more probable.

Then there comes another question. Assuming evolution is correct, is it random or is it by design?

I think most people agree here that evolution was unplanned and not designed from on high. But natural selection gives the appearance of design, and in a sense it's "designed from the bottom up" like the internet or cities or natural landscapes. When you call it random, creationists abuse that word and say that it's like saying a tornado went through a junkyard and built a 747-- this sounds so implausible, that a "designer" must be necessary.

So most biolgists try to head of this canard and obfuscation technique by describing evolution as "random mutation coupled with natural selection". The former is random in that things are always happening on the DNA level regardless of weather they benefit the possessor-- the latter is not in that it multiplies the successes exponentially and culls the worst stuff at the get go.
The rest of the DNA competes in "genome teams" that build organisms that compete to be the best replicator in whatever environment they find themselves in. That really isn't random at all and you can see that the word random would confuse the issues.

For example, the mutation in this article is random for all intents and purposes-- but the way it exponentially spread through the genome is not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

If you were a male butterfly, and you did not have this mutation, you didn't survive to be born. I think you can see how simple and comprehensible this is and why creationists would like to play semantic games to obfuscate understanding.

And welcome to JREF.

(And Meadmaker... would you call the rapid spread of the mutation in the above article, "random"?--because if so, you wouldn't be conveying how it appears that the butterflies got lucky on purpose or whatever it is that creationists think...but only a single lucky butterfly out of an untold number of experiments came up with a resistance to the parasite...and he fathered the next generation of sons who all had the mutation and so on...butterfly males without the protective mutation failed--they never got to be born--we have no idea how many failures there were before the mutation arose. And this will, no doubt, drive the evolution of the parasite species too...

 

[articulett]

*Sigh*

No Meadmaker - your lack of knowledge about something does not make it random.

If I were to get a pack of standard playing cards and pick one you would tell me my card is random because you would be limited to guessing probabilistically what it is.

My card does not exist in a superposition however.

Your lack of knowledge is irrelevant to the nature of the card.

That is a funny quirk I've noticed in human thinking as well as noting design where none is intended... they tend to think that they can influence the outcome that has already been decided... just because they do not know the outcome of the decision. Wishing, praying, and hoping, about a pregnancy test does nothing to change the outcome--but people do stuff like that all the time. I thought natural selection was pretty easy to understand... I had no idea there were scientifically literate people who didn't have a clue...

 

[articulett]

The burden isn't on me because the great majority of the world's population has always believed in a deity. But I'm not challenging evolution per se, only the theory that life came into existence randomly and has progressed through random mutations.

the majority of the world also believed the earth was flat...

And billions of flies love the taste of crap--

You and your creationist buddies ought to figure out which creation story is true--the Scientologists? Mormons? Muslims? Raelians? Moonies? Kim Jong Il's story, The fundie young earth creationist story, Behe's common descent but with god stepping in to make Malaria and tweak things with his invisible magicness... Greek gods, Norse gods-- slug it out and debate each other and then when you figure it out (as well as who is and isn't a real Christian) then amass your data in support of said story and submit it for peer review.

Then, maybe, intelligent people will take you more seriously than Galileo took all the nutters trying to silence his facts.

You'd be surprised to know that evolution accounts for your stupidity-- stupid people survive longer and spawn more in this day and age thanks to the advances of science which they slander at every opportunity.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Could someone please explain what the problem with both poker and roulette being random is?

It doesn't mean their probabilities are the same or that skill can't effect the way the latter is played. In fact, the nature of the distribution function, which itself can be effected by the skill of the player, is what distinguishes between the games, but being governed by a distribution function makes the games random in so far as winning them is indeterminate.

 

[cyborg]

I've tried several times to explain it to you mijo but it does not appear you will ever get it as long as you cling to the idea that the a priori modelling of the game is more important than the a posteriori playing of it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Could someone please explain what the problem with both poker and roulette being random is?

It doesn't mean their probabilities are the same or that skill can't effect the way the latter is played.

You mean "the former", yes?

 

[mijopaalmc]

You mean "the former", yes?

yes

 

[articulett]

Could someone please explain what the problem with both poker and roulette being random is?

It doesn't mean their probabilities are the same or that skill can't effect the way the latter is played. In fact, the nature of the distribution function, which itself can be effected by the skill of the player, is what distinguishes between the games, but being governed by a distribution function makes the games random in so far as winning them is indeterminate.

Those who want to be clear don't say the winner at Poker won due to randomness... we recognize that how you play the game has to do with who takes home the jackpot and who is left with nothing.

In roulette, each outcome is equally likely and the winner wins due to random chance alone.

Not distinguishing between the two is sloppy and leads to tornado in the junkyard analogies when applied to evolution. Heck, it would be sloppy if you were just trying to explain which Vegas games someone might enjoy playing...

People who want to be clear, don't call things "random" just because that thing has random components. People who want to make evolution sound impossible do, however.

 

[Rodney]

a) Is not a part of the theory of evolution. While there is no reason to expect supernatural interference, this area is still up for grabs, and only Occam's Razor prevents sensible people from thinking that God (or a Designer, if you want) did it. Creationists can insert their favourite deity here.

Considering how biochemists, such as the late Stanley Miller, have run into a brick wall trying to create life in a laboratory, I'd say it's definitely "still up for grabs."

b) Has already been proven with rock-solid evidence (pun intended). Creationists will not accept the evidence, no matter what. It has been proven through fossil evidence, geologic evidence, biological evidence, and evolution,

None of this has anything to do with my point about random mutations. Is there any model anywhere showing how life could plausibly have progressed to the present level of complexity with information added only through such mutations? If not, why not?

including speciation has been shown to take place even today in the short time span that we have been looking for it.

I assume you're referring to polyploidy, which is not speciation in the Darwinian sense of one species changing by random mutations and natural selection into another species.

What more do creationists want?

1) Life created in a laboratory.

2) A plausible Darwinian model.

 

[cyborg]

A plausible Darwinian model.

What exactly constitutes plausible in your mind?

Because I'm thinking even a full-blown Earth simulator wouldn't satisfy you.

 

[Mozybyte]

Not distinguishing between the too is sloppy

one
TWO
three
four

 

[Mozybyte]

Of the life that develops, some percentage of it will achieve intelligence.

Intelligence may be present at photon level, one switch with "on / off" ability can produce LOGIC and learn, at Electron level there's enough complexity, that unhindered by Cultivated Delusion, may be smarter than you.

 

[rittjc]

I've tried several times to explain it to you mijo but it does not appear you will ever get it as long as you cling to the idea that the a priori modelling of the game is more important than the a posteriori playing of it.

Actually that's not true with a roulette wheel. The roulette while is not perfect or mounted extremely horizontal so lots of gamblers sit there and watch the wheel (a posteriori knowledge) and find the area where the well stops the most often.

Shuffling cards an arbitrary number of times and having a cut is random in the sense that the 52 cards con be in any order. You could not predict patterns from even knowing the last sort order.

 

[rittjc]

That is a funny quirk I've noticed in human thinking as well as noting design where none is intended... they tend to think that they can influence the outcome that has already been decided... just because they do not know the outcome of the decision. Wishing, praying, and hoping, about a pregnancy test does nothing to change the outcome--but people do stuff like that all the time. I thought natural selection was pretty easy to understand... I had no idea there were scientifically literate people who didn't have a clue...

By the very same token, neither does wishing, praying and hoping make evolution by natural selection as a function to make a species suddenly appear either. I thought it was breeding of preexisting information that caused new features to appear, not the slaughter of specimens though a predatory and destructive process like natural selection.

Evolutionists believe that if they say natural selection drives the appearance rather than reduction of species, it will somehow become logical and actually happen that way.

 

[cyborg]

I thought it was breeding of preexisting information that caused new features to appear, not the slaughter of specimens though a predatory and destructive process like natural selection.

You can think what you like boyo.

But you don't show any understanding of evolution.

You don't show any understanding of information.

You don't show any understanding of anything you're debating.

The first sensible thing you said was about the bias that an actual roulette wheel might show - I'm guessing whatever creationist website you're getting your anti-evolution stuff from (where is that BTW?) didn't deal with that so you had to actually think about it.

It's amazing how you can be logical in one breath and then say something unbelievably stupid in the next.

 

[articulett]

AAck... there's a woo invasion... you say the word "random" and they come a-running...

Steenkh... engage them only for entertainment purposes... they cannot learn nor engage in actual dialogue.... they've been brainwashed to believe that they have higher truths they must inflict on others and no clue as to how much they do not understand. I have never ever seen a creationist yield in the slightest. Keeping the delusion alive takes a lot of energy and obfuscation and self aggrandizement... remember, they believe they will suffer forever if they bite from the tree of knowledge--

I'd wish we could direct them all towards a thread with each other and let them fight out the nature of the designer and we could sneak in for amusement. But they are always Islands unto themselves with their own opinions as to why their designer is the true designer and evolution is a lie from satan. Dialogue is never their forte--they're already sure they know it all. They always have this critique of scientists but not an iota of evidence in support of some other better explanation.

I stole this quote from Dynamic (I think): It's easier to throw stones than to catch them.

 

[articulett]

one
TWO
three
four

Don't you love when that happens? You get to feel all clever and everything.

To quote Cyborg: Happy, happy, clappy, clappy

 

[Foster Zygote]

Actually that's not true with a roulette wheel. The roulette while is not perfect or mounted extremely horizontal so lots of gamblers sit there and watch the wheel (a posteriori knowledge) and find the area where the well stops the most often.

Could you back this up with some evidence? How many games would an observer have to watch to discern where to place his money? A thousand? Ten thousand? And how much more likely is the ball to land in said area? .001%? .00001%? This is about as credible as when people claim to have a "system" for winning at keno or the slots. Roulette wheels are precision balanced and mounted on precision bearings. They are well enough balanced and level enough that any effect on the randomness of each play will be so small as to be insignificant.

 

[Foster Zygote]

By the very same token, neither does wishing, praying and hoping make evolution by natural selection as a function to make a species suddenly appear either. I thought it was breeding of preexisting information that caused new features to appear, not the slaughter of specimens though a predatory and destructive process like natural selection.

Evolutionists believe that if they say natural selection drives the appearance rather than reduction of species, it will somehow become logical and actually happen that way.

A number of people have explained to you quite clearly how natural selection preserves beneficial genes within a population. Did you simply not read these explanations? Did you read them but decide to ignore them because you think you're really on to something clever with this "natural selection is only destructive" idea that you're obviously so fond of? Or perhaps you simply didn't understand it.

 

[Meadmaker]

None of this has anything to do with my point about random mutations. Is there any model anywhere showing how life could plausibly have progressed to the present level of complexity with information added only through such mutations?

No. Now let me backtrack a bit. If what you mean by a "model" is a sequence of steps that recreate it, or a demonstration of a plausible path, or a simulation that produces the same result, then no.

If not, why not?

We're working on it.

On the other hand, there is an awful lot of evidence that points to the existence of this yet undiscovered model. We have a much more vague model that says genotype->phenotype, and random changes are possible to genotype, and fossils that look like what you would expect if it happened, and comparative anatomy and DNA analysis that suggests common ancestry. However, if you are looking for a set of chemical reactions or processes, there isn't such a list, yet.