What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

cyborg said:
Then I can't really help you out here Rodney.

If you can be precise about what it is you need to see as far as the mechanism in action then I can help out.

I don't really think you are interested in whether it is true or not though - not that you'll admit that if it is the case of course but there you go.
Click to expand...
All I'm asking is that you or someone else supply some probability estimates to justify your contention that Darwinian evolution is plausible. It's not enough to argue that, given 3.8 billion years, any kind of evolutionary change is possible.
 
The continuing disagreement in this thread is not over the definition of random but the definition of evolution.

Some people here use the term evolution to refer to an algorithm that is some combination of reproduction, selection, and mutation. This algorithm is not random.

Other people have been using the term evolution to refer to the physical features that are a result of this algorithm, which at any point follow a probability distribution, and can therefore be accurately described as random.
 
Rodney said:
All I'm asking is that you or someone else supply some probability estimates to justify your contention that Darwinian evolution is plausible.
Click to expand...

*Sigh* Could you drop the whole Darwinian thing? It's not a damn cult - it's a scientific theory.

Here's your probability estimate anyway: 1.

Otherwise I just don't know what probabilities it is you're asking for or what of precisely. (And frankly I don't think you really know what it is you think you're asking for either).

It's not enough to argue that, given 3.8 billion years, any kind of evolutionary change is possible.
Click to expand...

And you've seen that argument where precisely?
 
whiteyonthemoon said:
The continuing disagreement in this thread is not over the definition of random but the definition of evolution.

Some people here use the term evolution to refer to an algorithm that is some combination of reproduction, selection, and mutation. This algorithm is not random.

Other people have been using the term evolution to refer to the physical features that are a result of this algorithm, which at any point follow a probability distribution, and can therefore be accurately described as random.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Need to be pointed out.
 
articulett said:
Yes, but no peer reviewed source seems to be using that definition. It doesn't distinguish Poker from Roulette.

But if it makes you happy--then I side with cyborg-- happy happy clappy clappy.... whatever you need to do to keep your illusion alive.
Click to expand...

Actually any source that centers around modeling evolution as a stochastic process, of which there there is quite an extensive of array dating back at least into the 1950's, use this definition of random and don't find any problem with it.
 
cyborg said:
*Sigh* Could you drop the whole Darwinian thing? It's not a damn cult - it's a scientific theory.

Here's your probability estimate anyway: 1.

Otherwise I just don't know what probabilities it is you're asking for or what of precisely. (And frankly I don't think you really know what it is you think you're asking for either).
Click to expand...
I already gave you one example regarding abiogenesis. Here is another: http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php
What I'm looking for is a probability analysis regarding the likelihood of life evolving in the manner it has.

cyborg said:
And you've seen that argument where precisely?
Click to expand...
"Since taking hold on Earth more than 3.8 billion years ago, life has never let go. Evolutionary transformations along the way -- changes in the forms and functions of living things -- have produced tremendous diversity.

"Explore life's greatest hits. You'll learn that most of evolution has taken place underwater. You'll trace some remarkable journeys, like how life moved out of water and on to land. And you'll discover that some of evolution's most successful creatures just happened to be in the right place at the right time." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/low_bandwidth.html
 
mijopaalmc said:
Actually any source that centers around modeling evolution as a stochastic process, of which there there is quite an extensive of array dating back at least into the 1950's, use this definition of random and don't find any problem with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but nobody but you is using stochastic process as a synonym for random.

Yes, stochastic processes are sometimes called "random processes"-- but that is because they contain random variables--they themselves are not considered random. Of course, to you, they are random because anything with any randomness is random to you. Your definition leaves you with a complete inability to describe how the benefits accrue exponentially over time.

But of course, you know that... and that is your whole point in calling evolution random. Say, why don't you give it a go at answering Rodney's question; I'm sure he'll understand evolution with your definition.
 
Last edited:
Stochastic processes are axiomatically random because the defined one probability measures. Saying otherwise is in contravention of the entire theory of stochastic processes.
 
Mijopaalmc, do you see that there is an underlying conserved theme in evolution, that of reproduction, selection, and mutation, that is in itself not random?

Articulett, do you understand that a real world instantiation of the theory of evolution will lead to probability distributions in mutation and survival rates that even under intense scrutiny prove to be random?
 
Rodney said:
I already gave you one example regarding abiogenesis. Here is another: http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php
What I'm looking for is a probability analysis regarding the likelihood of life evolving in the manner it has.
Click to expand...

You won't find it. No one knows.

On the other hand, we could pick apart your paper pretty easily. It deals with a probability estimate of a cell emerging from the primordial soup. No one thinks that the first self replicating molecule or collection of molecules appeared as a cell. Cells must have come along later.

To be fair, no one has a clue about what really did happen to cause abiogenesis.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Stochastic processes are axiomatically random because the defined one probability measures. Saying otherwise is in contravention of the entire theory of stochastic processes.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. Algebraic problems have random variables as do functions--but nobody but you would define them as random in themselves. That is what you are doing with stochastic processes. You are using stochastic as a synonym for random. It isn't. Except to you.
 
whiteyonthemoon said:
Mijopaalmc, do you see that there is an underlying conserved theme in evolution, that of reproduction, selection, and mutation, that is in itself not random?

Articulett, do you understand that a real world instantiation of the theory of evolution will lead to probability distributions in mutation and survival rates that even under intense scrutiny prove to be random?
Click to expand...

Sure... if you are using Mijo's definition of random. But nobody in biology is... in fact there are no peer reviewed papers that I can see that would call the survival rates "random". Survival and reproduction is determined by the best replicators. That's why peer reviewed sources go out of their way to call natural selection non-random or to convey the ways in which successful mutations are multiplied exponentially. As soon as you call the whole thing random because some part is random you've got the whirlwind in a junkyard analogy.
 
You just don't get it do you, articulett?

If the function is not defined on a probability measure (as the random variables of probability theory are and as the functions of elementary algebra and calculus aren't), then the function is by definition not random.
 
mijopaalmc said:
You just don't get it do you, articulett?

If the function is not defined on a probability measure (as the random variables of probability theory are and as the functions of elementary algebra and calculus aren't), then the function is by definition not random.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I understand what you are saying quite well. Algorithms like Google return "random results" per your definition of random. People are random because they are made of atoms and the electron spin is random... the results of pregnancy tests are random and poker is as random as roulette... I understand just fine... which is why I'm telling you that nobody with any credibility calls evolution a random process. Your definition doesn't distinguish between the butterfly and the 747 in the junkyard-- but you know that-- which is why you cling to your claim that there is no evidence that evolution is non-random.

I think you've worn out everybody else with your spin... you'll have to start recruiting some creationists if you want someone to pretend you are saying something useful or meaningful or if you want someone to think you understand natural selection.

You are free to insult me all you want, but you are the one using a definition that is not defined as you are using it in any peer reviewed journal. Nor are any of them saying "natural selection is random" nor are they saying evolution is random...nor are they saying that stochastic = random.

Maybe Whiteyonthemoon will help you see how vague you are or scrounge up some people who think you are super duper at modeling evolution. You can write up your thesis about how Dawkins et. al. are wrong and submit it for peer review and say "I told you so" to me when they publish it.

If you were my student, you'd get a D on conveyance of the process. But I'm sure Behe would give you a B+. I just want you to know I agree with you completely. Per your definition of random, evolution is random. And so is just about everything else.
 
Hey "Mijo", not to "Mijar" on you, but on the quest... What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

By consensus or lack off, non-random is a term obviously not suited in this instance, as further definition to the selection process in the Hypothesis of Evolution.
Just as quantifying time in the equal possibility of Creation is too not recommended.

0+(-C)
 
Rodney said:
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." ;)
Click to expand...
At least we can agree here. So why do creationists always throw abiogenesis in as an argument against evolution, when it really has nothing to do with 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?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, such models has existed practically since Darwin. In the very first book that I read about evolution, there was an outline of how life had evolved from single-celled creatures to humans.

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.
Click to expand...
No, I was not referring to diploidy. I know you are familiar with talkorigins.org, so I will direct you to this article: Observed Instances of Speciation

1) Life created in a laboratory.
Click to expand...
Somehow, I do not think this will work as an argument when it actually happens, although as long as it has not happened, creationists will demand it as evidence.

2) A plausible Darwinian model.
Click to expand...
This already exists. The only argument against that I have heard so far is an argument from ignorance. Do you have anything better?
 
steenkh said:
As far as I know, such models has existed practically since Darwin. In the very first book that I read about evolution, there was an outline of how life had evolved from single-celled creatures to humans.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the "models" that exist are vague descriptions. What ID advocates are demanding is either a laboratory demonstration, or a detailed, step by step account, or simulation, that could take us from atoms to life (for abiogenesis), or from one species to another (for evolution).

On some level, it's a reasonable demand. I find it hard to criticize people who insist that until such detailed models exist that evolution has not been proven.

Where I object just as strongly as anyone else on JREF to the ID crowd is that they try to turn the lack of those models into evidence against the theory of evolution. That is, as you pointed out, and as has been pointed out ad nauseum in this forum and elsewhere in all sorts of other media, a pure argument from ignorance. The only thing they have is, "You can't prove it." (And "proof" can only be a recreation, or an extremely detailed, molecular level model.)

I also emphasize to any ID sympathizers that while our existing models might be vague descriptions, there is a whole lot of evidence that is entirely consistent with those vague descriptions. Our knowledge of DNA, which has been so instrumental in our understanding of the chemistry of life, and which has been leading to so many advancements in modern medicine, is anything but vague, but it is entirely consistent with everything that has been said about evolution ever since Darwin. Indeed, the quest to make those evolutionary models more detailed has driven a lot of those advances in our knowledge, and nothing has ever come up inconsistent with the theory of evolution.

So, I don't know enough about abiogenesis to say what the probability is that life will arise on an Earth-like planet. I don't know enough about evolution to say what the probability is that complex life will evolve from simple cells. However, I do know enough to say that it appears to have happened once, and there is no real doubt about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom