What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?

[articulett]

You fail to explain the "sticking factor"-- the non random aspects-- how stuff becomes fixed in populations, multiplies exponentially and is built upon-- why we see the results we see. THAT isn't "random"-- or rather it's so misleading and uninformative to call it so. You could call poker a game of "probabilities"-- it really doesn't describe the game though. You're getting better if you describe particular probabilities, but using terms like probability and random are not essential to understanding the game-- and leave out the "essence" of what the game is about--it's "essence". The same for evolution. Sure, you are talking about things that involve probabilities--but those probabilities are not the "important" part of what you are describing. It's the "easy" part. You miss the meat again and again and mix up tenses regarding "the process" (akin to "the game") and specifics about examples (akin to using specific possible hands to describe the essence of a "poker game" to support your assertion that it's "probabilistic").

But Cyborg and Myriad said this better than I did. And Dawkins was very clear on why natural selection is the "opposite of random". If they can't tell you and the fact that no evolutionary biologist sums up evolution as random-- then I think we both need to admit that this is something you cannot understand--probably because you think you already do understand everything there is to understand on the topic.

Myself... I'm starting to realize how very poorly physicists understand evolution, and how it might not be fixable--

 

[articulett]

And selection is not "random" in nature either, Jim bob-- it depends entirely on which genes cause it's vectors to copy them the most in the environment they happen to find themselves in. The algorithm is very similar. You just don't "get" it.

Read a little Darwin or Dawkins if you want to get it-- pick up the Selfish Gene. What becomes widespread and fixed in populations is far from "random"-- mutations arise "randomly"-- but they do not spread through populations randomly nor are they weeded out randomly. It's all based on which DNA builds the best replicators in whatever natural environment they happen to find themselves in-- that's it. Evolution is a process... random components do not a "random process" make. Really.

When you put a search term in google, the results are not random-- they are based on an algorithm... you could call that "probabilistic", but that isn't particularly informative... not, because it's not "probabilistic"-- just because there's not the essential information in that term that allows a person to understand what is going on when "random" words are entered in a google search producing "non-random" results-- or at least results not "random" in the same respect as the randomness of search terms (which aren't truly "random" either--but presumably entered without reference to how google works or how such a search could skew future google results.)

You description of evolution is on par with saying google returns "probabilistic" results... not wrong-- just garbled and uninformative... but not as bad as saying it produces "random results".

Describe the result-- not probabilities and hypotheticals of the process -- unless you have the actual "probabilities" to plug in. In essence, you are doing a slightly less tortured thing than Mijo is doing in his OP-- you are going out of your way to emphasize the "random" parts of the process and totally missing why biologists say natural selection is NOT random or "the opposite of random" or the "derandomizer" or "determined" or nonrandom. That's what Behe is doing. And all the explanations in the world don't seem to help any of you guys understand this! Maybe you just aren't able to understand why they say that... but they are clear; your definitions are not --as evidenced by peer review and those who actually teach others on the topic.

What's your goal?

 

[Taffer]

articulett, clue me in here. Is it still being argued that evolution is random, rather then non-random selection on random variation?

 

[articulett]

See, no-one will disagree with you if you say Poker involves random card distribution and probabilistic outcomes either, Jim-bob. That's "true"-- it's just a muddled iway to describe what Poker is, and I can't imagine why anyone would find such an explanation useful. That's how your description of evolution sounds, Jim Bob. And I just think it might be as hard for you to comprehend why this is a poor description just as Behe really doesn't seem to comprehend why Dawkins et. al. feels similarly about his description of the evolution. You guys miss the meat--either on purpose or out of ignorance-- but I've never seen it fixable when it's this "bad".

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett, clue me in here. Is it still being argued that evolution is random, rather then non-random selection on random variation?

Yes, it is. Honestly, I don't see the problem here. The evidence that has been presented is not really evidence of evolution's non-randomness; it is evidence that scientists say evolution is non-randomness for reasons that don't necessarily make it non-random.

 

[articulett]

articulett, clue me in here. Is it still being argued that evolution is random, rather then non-random selection on random variation?

Yes... in true Kleinman fashion... but Jim Bob wants to call it "random mutation and probabilistic selection"-- and Mijo is completely Behe-esque-- evolution IS random to him and that is that... Meadmaker is doing his typical apologetics and not saying anything. Jim Bob imagines he has the perfect solution or "compromise", but can't grasp how muddled and uninformative he sounds. It's like the the Kleinman thread... the more attention you give them... the more valid they think their views are. Beware the thread with the hinky sounding OP question with the answer implied, eh?

I just pop in on occasion because I want people to understand evolution--particularly natural selection, and I think some people might amble upon this thread because they actually want the answer to the OP... I don't want the obfuscaters to confuse them-- evolution is easy to understand, but the obfuscaters will make it sound like you are "too stupid" to get it when, in fact, their explanations show that they don't "get" it. It seems Behe and his ilk can cause a sort of brain damage or encourage a sort of backwards thinking that humans are prone to anyhow...

(I have Meadmaker and Mijopaalmac on ignore... I have long since learned that they are as comprehensible as Behe and Kleinman--I keep thinking Jim-Bob has a chance to comprehend something very valuable-- but he's too stuck in his "probabilities" and he's certain that I'm the bad guy who has misjudged the two I now have on ignore.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

If you guys have such low opinions of people who think differently than you, why do you continue to engage us in "conversation"?

More importantly, why do you complain when we continue to express ourselves?

 

[mijopaalmc]

See, no-one will disagree with you if you say Poker involves random card distribution and probabilistic outcomes. That's "true"-- it's just a muddled informative way to describe what Poker is and I can't imagine why anyone would find such an explanation useful. That's how your description of evolution sounds, Jim Bob. And I just think it might be as hard for you to comprehend why this is a poor description just as Behe really doesn't seem to comprehend why Dawkins et. al. feels similarly about his description of the process. You guys miss the meat--either on purpose or out of ignorance-- but I've never seen it fixable when it's this "bad".

I'm sorry, but this is the same old tired straw man.

So what if the definition makes poker "random"?

The thing that distinguishes it from roulette or craps is the actual distribution function, each game has a different one. It is not only helpful to view these and other games of chance as based on probability but necessary to understanding the pay out structure of the games.

 

[jimbob]

What about a little Gould fro a change from Dawkins?

He put the case eloquently for randomness as I mean it.

Optimisation is inevitable. What the forms the optimisations take, is not. Some features are (from the evidence) more likely than others. Flight is a more likely trait than sentience, for example.

 

[JoeEllison]

See, no-one will disagree with you if you say Poker involves random card distribution and probabilistic outcomes either, Jim-bob. That's "true"-- it's just a muddled iway to describe what Poker is, and I can't imagine why anyone would find such an explanation useful. That's how your description of evolution sounds, Jim Bob. And I just think it might be as hard for you to comprehend why this is a poor description just as Behe really doesn't seem to comprehend why Dawkins et. al. feels similarly about his description of the evolution. You guys miss the meat--either on purpose or out of ignorance-- but I've never seen it fixable when it's this "bad".

You know, and maybe I'm way off on this... but it seems to me that no one would call poker "random". "Random" implies that it is all luck and no skill, and that every player has an equal chance of winning. We could describe roulette as random, because there's about an equal chance of the ball landing in any one of the slots. Poker, though? Would anyone honestly describe that as "random"?

If not, why would anyone describe evolution as "random", and not expect to be called out on it?

 

[Meadmaker]

You know, and maybe I'm way off on this... but it seems to me that no one would call poker "random". "Random" implies that it is all luck and no skill, and that every player has an equal chance of winning. We could describe roulette as random, because there's about an equal chance of the ball landing in any one of the slots. Poker, though? Would anyone honestly describe that as "random"?

If not, why would anyone describe evolution as "random", and not expect to be called out on it?

If forced to choose one word, and they had to choose "random" or "nonrandom", which would they choose?

Hopefully, they would refuse to answer because you can't sum up poker in one word. Or, they would demand a definition before answering the question, because random is a word that has several entries in the dictionary, some of which describe poker and some of which do not.

However, if I were to describe poker as "a random game" I would not be incorrect. You say that "random" implies all luck and no skill. My professors would be quite surprised to hear that.

Hmmm. Six7s brought up a common problem from probability. It was on one of my homework assignments when I took "probability and random processes". (I got it wrong) Many of you will probably have heard it before.

There is a game show. The host has three doors. Behind one door is a fabulous prize. The other two doors have nothing. The contestant is asked to pick one door. After he picks, the host shows him the contents of one of the other doors, which has nothing behind it. The host says, "Now, Joe, do you still like your door? Or would you rather have the other door you haven't seen yet? You can switch if you like." Do you

A. Switch
B. Keep your door.
C. It doesn't matter.


Answer:

The answer is switch. If you don't believe me, ask, but that really is the answer and there is absolutely no doubt about it. Really.

So, now, is the game show random? It's a game of skill. There's a right answer and a wrong answer. So does that make it non-random? If you pick right, there's a 2/3 chance of winning. If you pick wrong, there's a 1/3 chance of winning.

And, if the game show isn't random, why were we studying it in a class on random numbers?

 

[Meadmaker]

articulett, clue me in here. Is it still being argued that evolution is random, rather then non-random selection on random variation?

So, how would you answer jimbob's questions? Articulett won't answer them. It's not her style.

 

[JoeEllison]

However, if I were to describe poker as "a random game" I would not be incorrect.

Yes, you would be.

 

[Meadmaker]

You fail to explain the "sticking factor"-- the non random aspects-- how stuff becomes fixed in populations, multiplies exponentially and is built upon-- why we see the results we see.

That's odd. From his explanations, I do see that.

Weird, huh?

 

[Taffer]

So, how would you answer jimbob's questions? Articulett won't answer them. It's not her style.

I won't bother. I made myself clear many pages and many moons ago.

I will answer specific, questions about evolution and population genetics, however.

And I've found Articulett a very effective answerer of questions.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I won't bother. I made myself clear many pages and many moons ago.

Dodge noted.

I will answer specific, questions about evolution and population genetics, however.

Then you might want to address how the quotes from Kimura and Bell, which deal with population genetics and call evolution a stochastic process, fit in with evolution being "non-random".


Stochastic Processes and the Distribution of Gene Frequencies under Natural Selection

Evolution is a stochastic process of change in gene frequencies in natural populations. Since the populations making up a species consist of many individuals and since evolution extends over enormous periods of time, laws which govern the process of change are inevitably "statistical". In this sense the genetical theory of evolution, as R. A. Fisher (1922) suggests, is comparable to the theory of gases. This analogy can be pushed further: Instead of considering populations as aggregates of genes, we find it more convenient to consider populations as aggregates of gene frequencies (or ratios). This is similar to the situation in physics where the specification of theory population of velocities is more useful than that of the population of particles (Fisher, 1953). As far as I know, this fruitful idea was first incorporated into the theory of population genetics by Fisher in his 1922 paper, which lead to a later elaboration (Fisher 1930a).

Selection: The Mechanism of Evolution

And I've found Articulett a very effective answerer of questions.

So would care to explain how how saying something is "non-random" (i.e., not based in probability) and then using probability to explain it and saying "[r]andomness of a phenomenon is not itself 'random'" are good explanations of the aspects of evolution?

 

[andyandy]

You know, and maybe I'm way off on this... but it seems to me that no one would call poker "random". "Random" implies that it is all luck and no skill, and that every player has an equal chance of winning. We could describe roulette as random, because there's about an equal chance of the ball landing in any one of the slots. Poker, though? Would anyone honestly describe that as "random"?

If not, why would anyone describe evolution as "random", and not expect to be called out on it?

It is amazing that after 2500 posts there is still a debate over what random means - there is more than one interpretation - surely that is apparent now?

The two interpretations being used here are

1) A random process requires that each outcome has an equal outcome

2) A random process is one which follows a non-deterministic probability distribution.

neither are "wrong," neither are "right" - (1) is how lay people general understand the term (2) is how it is understood in mathematics and modeling.

If you want to communicate to laypeople (1) is preferable to avoid confusion, but if you want to actually understand the modelling behind evolution then (2) is preferable.

What else is there to discuss?

 

[JoeEllison]

It is amazing that after 2500 posts there is still a debate over what random means - there is more than one interpretation - surely that is apparent now?

The two interpretations being used here are

1) A random process requires that each outcome has an equal outcome

2) A random process is one which follows a non-deterministic probability distribution.

neither are "wrong," neither are "right" - (1) is how lay people general understand the term (2) is how it is understood in mathematics and modeling.

If you want to communicate to laypeople (1) is preferable to avoid confusion, but if you want to actually understand the modelling behind evolution then (2) is preferable.

What else is there to discuss?

Whether or not we should shoot and eat monkeys? Or, the difference between "random" and "unpredictable"? Or even why someone would phrase the question as "What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?", besides what seems to be a pretty obvious bias and agenda. At least for me, it is that wording that makes me think that the intent is to confuse laypersons.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Whether or not we should shoot and eat monkeys? Or, the difference between "random" and "unpredictable"? Or even why someone would phrase the question as "What evidence is there for evolution being non-random?", besides what seems to be a pretty obvious bias and agenda. At least for me, it is that wording that makes me think that the intent is to confuse laypersons.

Careful, Joe, your bias is showing.

 

[mijopaalmc]

1) A random process requires that each outcome has an equal outcome

2) A random process is one which follows a non-deterministic probability distribution.

You know, I think it is really interesting that none of the "non-randomites" want to acknowledge that (1) is a special case of (2). Even more telling, they seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that, even when the probabilities are uniformly distributed, repeated sampling from the same distribution causes convergence towards the mean value of the distribution with decreasing variance as the sample size increases. This result is called the central limit theorem, and it is extremely disconcerting that people who claim to have take university-level courses in probability and statistics seem to be completely ignorant of it. While it is true that the specific example of the central limit theorem only pertains to simple random sampling with no time component, it still stands as an example of how a random process can have ordered and why the categorical dismissal of evolution's alleged randomness because of its orderly results is ill-advised.